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
Claim(s) 1-20 has/have been examined.Claim(s) 1-20 have been rejected.
Novel Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-20 recite novel subject matter while being rejected as directed to non-statutory subject matter. The novel subject matter is as described in the office action of October 21, 2025.
Response to Arguments
As a preliminary note, the interview of December 23, 2025 had presumed, based on a recent memo, that there would be some new guidance as to how the office handles abstract ideas regarding improved data structures. No specific guidance regarding handling of improved data structures has emerged since that time. The arguments submitted December 18, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the claimed invention provides an improvement to a technology and therefore integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant points to the claimed process which results in an alert that includes properties of similar resolved alerts, that may be useful to an IT responder attempting to remedy the new alert. The examiner notes that to be considered an improvement that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the improvement must be realized as an implemented improvement within the claim. The claims in this case result in a data structure having the potential to improve alert handling, but implementation of the data structure has not been claimed.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Below is an evaluation using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1 is satisfied because method steps are processes.
At step 2a prong 1, an abstract idea is recited: steps of the claim could be performed as a mental process. These steps include identifying a plurality of reserved alerts similar to an alert, identifying among properties of the identified similar resolved alerts, one or more common properties having one or more statistical metrics meeting one or more corresponding thresholds; and causing a new alert to inherit the identified one or more common properties.
At steps 2a prong 2 and step 2b, additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception are not recited. The claim recites receiving a new alert and using one or more processors. Receiving of alert data is considered data gathering, which contributes only nominally to the execution of the claimed method. Use of a processor applies the mental process to a generic computer system.
The claim recites use of a machine learning model. This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the machine learning model is a generic component and like a computer, may be used for performing what would otherwise be a mental process. In this case the implementation of the machine learning model is generic and only generally links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Regarding claims 2, 17 and 18, these claim recite providing an explanation, sending a notification and sending an email to request remediation. Generating an explanation or sending of a notification or email does not integrated the judicial exception because it is an insignificant post solution activity. These limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are conventional steps and contribute only nominally to the execution of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 3, this claim recites details about the nature of the detected alert. The step is still directed to data gathering, despite any specific nature of the data itself. The claim does not recite additional elements which must be evaluated in step 2a prong 2 or step 2b.
Regarding claims 4-6 and 9-16 these claims recite additional limitations of the mental process but their inclusion does not push the mental process beyond what can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claims do not recite additional elements which must be evaluated in step 2a prong 2 or step 2b.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, these claims recite use of a database of alerts. This database does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the database does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and contributes only nominally to the execution of the claimed method in a data gathering step.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, these claim recite limitations found in claim 1 and are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1. The claims additionally recite a memory or non-transitory computer readable medium. Use of a processor and memory does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the usage amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nagata teaches analyzing abnormalities in an operation of an automated vehicle including comparing a currently encountered abnormality with past cases, determining whether the current abnormality is known, and if so, display details of a past response performed in the corresponding past case. Fukatsu teaches searching for an inserting previously reported medical information into a present report.
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 extension fee 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.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trialand-appeal-board/about-ptab/new-ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/patent-trial-and-appeal-board-pro-bono-programindependent.
The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH SCHELL whose telephone number is (571) 272-8186. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9AM-5:00PM (Pacific Time).
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. Please note that all agendas or related documents that Applicant would like reviewed should be sent at least one full business day (i.e. 24 hours not including weekends or holidays) before the interview.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashish Thomas can be reached at (571) 272-0631. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The fax phone number for the examiner is 571-273-8186. The examiner may be e-mailed at joseph.schell@uspto.gov though communications via e-mail are not permitted without a written authorization form (see MPEP 502.03).
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JS/JOSEPH O SCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114