DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This communication is a final action in response to the communications filed on 11/26/2025. Claims 1-15 and 18-22 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 1-15 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-15 and 18-22 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 1-15 and 18-22 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), without providing a practical application integration and without providing significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claims 1-15 and 18-22 are directed to a method (i.e., process), an system (i.e., machine/apparatus), and/or nontransitory medium (i.e., product) which are statutory categories of invention.
As per Step 2A-Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claims 1 and 19-20 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of storing a multilayered data model that includes a first layer of nodes representing different areas of operation, a second layer of nodes representing different symptoms associated with problems that degrade one or more of the different areas of operation, and a third layer of nodes representing different root causes associated with one or more of the different symptoms, wherein each node in the first layer of nodes is linked to at least one node in the second layer of nodes, wherein each node in the second layer of nodes is linked to at least one node in the third layer of nodes; training, by … that accesses the multilayered data model, at least one model based on input data from the multilayered data model and a selected training algorithm to generate at least one trained model, wherein training the at least one model comprises iteratively performing, by the training algorithm: generating a target output from a target model by feeding, as input, one or more feature vectors formed as a function of feature values accessed within the multilayered data model, wherein the target output predicts a solution associated with the problems that degrade one or more of the different areas of operation; and updating the target model based on the target output from the target model and patterns learned from patterns in the feature values accessed within the multilayered data model; receiving a set of information about an entity; mapping the set of information about the entity to a set of nodes in the multilayered data model, wherein mapping the set of information establishes a link between the entity and at least one node in each of the first layer of nodes, the second layer of nodes, and the third layer of nodes; determining based on said mapping, a target set of problems that potentially degrade operations of the entity; generating, using at least one trained model, a score for each problem in the target set of problems that indicates a severity of the problem for the entity and an output predicting a software resource addressing the problem; and performing one or more operations based at least in part on the score for each problem in the target set of problems and the output of the at least one trained model; which include mental processes (evaluating and analyzing data to make a judgement and opinion on problems); and certain methods of organizing human activity based on fundamental economic practice (mitigating risk of problems degrading operations of an entity), and managing personal behavior and interactions between people (following rules and instructions to help companies determine steps to resolve issues). Claims 2-15, 18, 21-22 are directed to the abstract idea of claim 1 with further details of the abstract idea which includes mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity for similar reasons as provided above for claim 1. After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As per Step 2A-Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, while the claims 1-15 and 18-22 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements, such as graphical user interface of an application that accesses the multilayered data model, non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, machine learning, wherein performing the one or more operations includes at least one of rendering an interface that includes a hyperlink for accessing the software resource addressing the problem or deploying the software resource addressing the problem, navigable interface that includes links, online campaign, Shopping cart interface, block chain network, block chain transaction, machine learning, user interface, one or more hardware processors; one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, these limitations are not enough to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, while the claims 1-15 and 18-22 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements, such as graphical user interface of an application that accesses the multilayered data model, non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, machine learning, wherein performing the one or more operations includes at least one of rendering an interface that includes a hyperlink for accessing the software resource addressing the problem or deploying the software resource addressing the problem, navigable interface that includes links, online campaign, Shopping cart interface, block chain network, block chain transaction, machine learning, user interface, one or more hardware processors; one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-15 and 18-22 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed on 11/26/2025 have been fully considered. Details are provided below.
Arguments on Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicants argued that the claims are directed to practical application of or significantly more than the abstract idea due to technical improvements. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s claims do not provide an improvement to a technology; on the contrary, the additional elements of generic computing technologies are used to apply the abstract idea in a particular technological environment without altering or improving these additional elements of technology. Note that, multiple layers of data can be handled mentally and/or with pen and a paper and are part of the abstract idea. For similar reasons, these additional elements do not provide an invention beyond well-understood, routine or conventional. Further note that applicant’s claims do not pertain to the fact pattern of example 47; for example, in claim 3 of example 47 there is risk mitigation by realtime active monitoring and quarantining of any malicious network packets. Whereas, Applicant’s invention merely provides a link to or deploys an identified software, which is at most an insignificant extrasolution activity; however, treated as “generally linking” in the rejection section above.
Conclusion
Closest prior art to the invention claims without rejections include
Schreiber et al. (US 11,595,243 B1), Grace et al. (US 2010/0275054 A1), Kimble (US 2015/0186893 A1), Southey (US 2014/0279718 A1), Schuler (US 2020/0127812 A1), Bencke (US 2017/0323211 A1), and Glenn (US 11144929 B2).
None of the prior art alone or in combination teaches the claimed invention; wherein the novelty is in the combination of all the limitations and not in a single limitation.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MEHMET YESILDAG whose telephone number is (571)272-3257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
Sincerely,
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624