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 Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's amendment filed on 13 April 2026. Applicant’s amendment on 13 April 2026 amended Claims 1, 14, 20, and 24. Currently Claims 1-11, 13-20 and 22-24 are pending and have been examined. Claim 12 and 25 were previously canceled, claim 21 was never presented. The Examiner notes that the 101 is maintained, but the prior art rejection has been withdrawn for claims 1-11, 13-20 and 22-24.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner notes that the prior art rejection has been withdrawn based on the amendment and the arguments currently presented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on page 18 that “The Claims Do Not Recite a Judicial Exception” Under Step 2A, Prong One because the limitations cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the argument the Examiner notes that while the Applicant argues that the amended claims do not recite a mental process because the claim limitations specifically the machine learning model trained to select IT remediation tasks based on first correlation operation results and automation tool characteristics, the generation of an ordering using the machine learning model, and the automatic invocation of automation tools to change an operational state of computing resources cannot practically be performed in the human mind, and that the mental process grouping should not be expanded to encompass such limitations. Applicant relies on MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), the August 4, 2025 Memorandum to Examiners, and the AI-SME Update in support of this position. The Examiner acknowledges the accuracy of the legal principle Applicant cites: per the August 4, 2025 Memorandum and the 2024 AI-SME Update, claim limitations that encompass AI in a way that cannot practically be performed in the human mind do not fall within the mental process grouping, and examiners are reminded not to expand that grouping to encompass such limitations.
The Examiner further acknowledges that the specific limitations Applicant identifies including training a machine learning model to select remediation tasks based on correlation operation results, generating an ordering using that model, and automatically invoking specific automation tools to change operational states of computing, storage, or network resources are operations that the human mind is not equipped to perform as a practical matter. Consistent with the August 4, 2025 Memorandum and the AI-SME Update, the Examiner agrees that these specific limitations, standing alone, do not fall within the mental process grouping. However, the rejection is not premised solely on the mental process grouping with respect to these specific limitations. Rather, the claim as a whole, when evaluated under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to the abstract idea of collecting, correlating, and organizing data about an IT incident to identify, select, order, and execute remediation tasks a concept that encompasses the collection and processing of information to make operational decisions, which is an abstract idea irrespective of whether individual limitations involve AI that cannot be mentally performed. Accordingly, while the Examiner acknowledges the merit of Applicant's argument with respect to the specific AI-involving limitations identified, the rejection under Step 2A, Prong One is maintained because the claims as a whole still recite an abstract idea, and the mere presence of limitations that cannot be mentally performed does not by itself render a claim free of any judicial exception.
The Applicant argues on pages 19-20 that The Claims Are Analogous to Example 39 (Method for Training a Neural Network for Facial Detection) and Are Therefore Patent Eligible at Step 2A, Prong One.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the argument the Examiner notes that the while the Applicant contends that amended claim 1 is analogous to USPTO Example 39 Method for Training a Neural Network for Facial Detection because the claim recites training a machine learning model, and that like Example 39, the claim does not recite any judicial exception because no mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations are expressly recited, and the limitations cannot practically be performed in the human mind. The Examiner is not persuaded that the analogy to Example 39 is controlling here. The critical basis for eligibility in Example 39 was that the claim reciting collecting facial images, applying transformations, creating training sets, and training a neural network did not set forth or describe any of the enumerated abstract idea groupings: no mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations were recited in the claim language, no mental process was recited because the steps could not practically be performed in the human mind, and no method of organizing human activity within the enumerated subgroupings was present. Amended claim 1 here differs materially.
While like Example 39 it does not expressly recite a named mathematical formula or calculation, the claim goes beyond mere neural network training and recites, as its core operational steps, receiving an IT incident notification, retrieving data structures, generating a knowledge graph, executing correlation operations, selecting tasks, generating an ordering, generating a skill set, classifying skills, executing a second correlation operation, generating a workflow, and automatically executing that workflow steps that collectively describe a process of collecting, correlating, analyzing, and acting on information to manage an operational problem, which is a concept of organizing and managing information that courts have recognized as an abstract idea. The mere fact that a machine learning model is used within certain steps does not, under the guidance of the August 4, 2025 Memorandum, automatically render the claim free of any judicial exception, because the distinction examiners must draw is between a claim that merely involves an exception and one that recites it, and the overall concept described by the claim as a whole here identifying and executing an IT remediation workflow based on data correlation reflects the recitation of an abstract idea in the nature of organizing and managing activity through information processing. Example 39 is therefore distinguishable on its facts and does not support a finding of eligibility at Step 2A, Prong One here.
The Applicant argues on pages 20-21 that Because the Claims Are Patent Eligible at Step 2A, Prong One, No Further Analysis Under Step 2A, Prong Two Is Required, and the Claims Should Be Found Eligible.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the argument the Examiner notes that the Applicant argues that because amended independent claims 1, 8 (as renumbered in the amended claims), and 15 (as renumbered) do not recite a judicial exception at Step 2A, Prong One, the inquiry ends there and the claims are patent eligible. The Examiner does not agree that the Step 2A, Prong One analysis resolves in Applicant's favor for the reasons set forth in response to Arguments 1 and 2 above. The claims recite an abstract idea, and accordingly the analysis proceeds to Step 2A, Prong Two. The Examiner therefore does not adopt Applicant's position that the eligibility analysis terminates favorably at Prong One, and the rejection is maintained.
The Applicant’s argue on page 20 that even if the claims recite a Judicial Exception, the claims are Patent Eligible because the Machine Learning Model and Automatic Invocation Limitations reflect a practical application.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the argument the Examiner notes that although Applicant's argument section does not present this as a formally labeled separate argument, it is embedded in the Prong One discussion when Applicant notes that the limitations of generating an ordering using the machine learning model and automatically invoking the first automation tool to execute operations that change an operational state of an application, computing device, storage device, or network resource cannot practically be performed in the human mind. The Examiner construes this as an implicit argument that these limitations, if they do not remove the claim from Prong One, nonetheless serve to integrate any recited exception into a practical application at Prong Two. Proceeding to Step 2A, Prong Two, the Examiner has evaluated the claim as a whole, including the additional elements beyond any recited abstract idea. The claim's additional elements include: retrieving an IT topology graph data structure; generating a knowledge graph data structure; executing correlation operations between the topology graph and knowledge graph to identify IT remediation tasks; selecting tasks using a trained machine learning model; generating an ordering using the machine learning model; generating an IT remediation task skill set; classifying skills as action, monitor, fallback, or rollback type; executing a second correlation operation using natural language processing of automation tool descriptions; generating an IT incident remediation task workflow that assigns to at least one task a first automation tool (action), a second automation tool (monitor), and a third automation tool (rollback/fallback); and automatically executing, without human intervention, the workflow by invoking the first automation tool to change an operational state, invoking the second to determine success, and invoking the third upon failure. The Examiner acknowledges that these additional elements add specificity relative to the abstract idea and that the specification describes an improved computing tool that provides an improvement over existing AIOps tools that lacked the capability to perform exploratory orchestration of mixed-methodology IT incident remediation workflows.
However, the Examiner finds that the claim as a whole does not clearly reflect a specific technical improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technical field that would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, because the claim describes using generic machine learning and NLP functions at a level of generality that does not specify the particular architecture, training methodology, or computational mechanism that constitutes the improvement the claim simply states that a machine learning model is trained to select tasks based on certain inputs and used to generate an ordering, without the kind of specific technical detail that distinguished the claims in, for example, Enfish (self-referential table with specific structural details) or SRI International (specific network packet analysis using network monitors). The invocation of automation tools in a three-tier action-monitor-rollback sequence is more specific and reflects a particular way of executing a workflow, and the Examiner takes this combination seriously; however, the overall combination of elements in the claim, while directed to a particular domain application, does not cross the threshold of reflecting a specific technical improvement to computer technology versus the application of generally described AI and NLP functions as tools to manage IT operations. Accordingly, the rejection at Step 2A, Prong Two is maintained.
The remaining Applicant's arguments filed 13 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
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 1-11, 13-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) 1-11, 13-20 and 22-24 is/are directed to the abstract idea of the collection of information technology incident information and analyzing the data to provide remediation tasks and workflows. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Claim(s) (1-11, 13-20 and 22-24) is/are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, claim(s) (1-11, 13-19, 22, and 23) is/are directed to a method, claim(s) (20) is/ are directed to a computer readable medium, and claims(s) (24) is/are directed to an apparatus and therefore the claims recite a series of steps and, therefore the claims are viewed as falling in statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a mental process. Specifically, the independent claims 1-20 and 22-25 recite a mental process: as drafted, the claim recites the limitation of generating IT remediation tasks and workflows which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processor nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the processor language, the claim encompasses the user manually collecting information regarding an IT incident and determining a tasks and workflow to remediate the incident. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. It has been established by ongoing guidance that claims that contain a generic processor are still viewed as mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, however this is different for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations (network monitoring, data encryption for communication, and rendering images). Therefore, these limitations are viewed a mental process. Additionally, with regard to the instant application the Examiner has reviewed the disclosure and determined that the underlying claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of a pen and paper, and thus it is viewed that the applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, 2) in a computer environment or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, and therefore is considered to recite a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2
Specifically, the determined judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because (select one the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and additionally that data receiving, retrieving, extracting, and executing steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity (including post solution activity).
The claim recites the additional element(s): that a processor is used to perform both the generating and correlating steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (collection of information technology incident information and analyzing the data to provide remediation tasks and workflows). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional element(s): receiving IT incident notification, retrieving knowledge data structure, extracting one or more IT remediation tasks, generating at least one knowledge graph, executing a first correlation operation, generation a first correlation, executing a second correlation, and performing similarity analysis and executing the generated IT incident remediation task workflow performs the generating step. The receiving, retrieving, generating, extracting, and executing steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering IT incident information for use in the generating and correlating steps), and amounts to mere data management, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor that performs the generating and correlating steps are also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the generating and correlating steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor).
The Examiner has further determined that the claims as a whole does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application in order to provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. It has been determined that based on the disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. It has not been provided clearly in the disclosure that the alleged improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, but is instead in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore does not improve the technology. Second, in the instance, which in this case it is not clear that the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must not reflect the disclosed improvement (the claims must include components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification).
For further clarification the Examiner points out that the claim(s) 1-11, 13-20 and 22-24 recite(s) receiving IT incident notification, retrieving knowledge data structure, extracting one or more IT remediation tasks, generating an IT remediation task, executing a correlation operation, executing the generated IT incident remediation task workflow, and generating an IT remediation workflow which are viewed as an abstract idea in the form of a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of a computer for receiving, generating, executing, and generating which is the abstract idea steps of valuing an idea (the collection of information technology incident information and analyzing the data to provide remediation tasks and workflows) in the manner of “apply it”.
Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea directed to a mental process (i.e. to the collection of information technology incident information and analyzing the data to provide remediation tasks and workflows). Using a computer to obtaining, classifying, quantifying, generation, identifying, and determining the data resulting from this kind of mental process merely implements the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it” and does not provide 'something more' to make the claimed invention patent eligible. The claimed limitations of a computing device are not constraining the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and do not provide significantly more.
The collection of information technology incident information and analyzing the data to provide remediation tasks and workflows would clearly be to a mental activity that a company would go through in order to decide how to mitigate IT incidents based on an analysis of the collected data regarding the incident. The specification makes it clear that the claimed invention is directed to the mental activity data gathering and data analysis to determine how to manage an IT incident:
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’.
The dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13-17, and 22 recite limitations which further limit the claimed analysis of data.
Claims 6, 7, 19, and 23 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed insignificantly extra solution activity.
Using a computer to perform the data processing as claimed is merely implementing the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it” and does not provide significantly more. Additionally with respect to the Berkheimer the Examiner points out that the steps of the claim are viewed to be to nothing more than spell out what it means to apply it on a computer and cannot confer patent-eligibility as there are no additional limitations beyond applying an abstract idea, restricted to a computer. As the claims are merely implementing the abstract idea in the manner of “Apply It” the need for a Berkheimer analysis does not apply and is not required. With respect to the currently filed claims the implementing steps can be found in Werth which discloses how the claims alone and in combination are viewed to be well understood, routine and conventional based on point 3 of the Berkheimer memo and subsequent evidence, complying with and providing evidence.
Claims 4, 9, and 18 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed non-functional data labels.
Thus, the problem the claimed invention is directed to answering the question based on the collection of information technology incident information and analyzing the data to provide remediation tasks and workflows. This is not a technical or technological problem but is rather in the realm of IT remediation problem solving and therefore an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. This is the case because in order for the claims to be viewed as significantly more the claims must incorporate the integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly. Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more. Additionally, another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more is whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. "[T]ransformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines. All together the above analysis shows there is not improvement in computer functionality, or improvement to any other technology or technical field. The claim is ineligible.
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’. Specifically, the dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies of the independent claims.
With respect to the legal concept of prima facie case being a procedural tool of patent examination, which allocates the burdens going forward between the examiner and the applicant. MPEP § 2106.07 discusses the requirements of a prima facie case of ineligibility. In particular, the initial burden was on the Examiner and believed to be properly provided as to explain why the claim(s) are ineligible for patenting because of the above provided rejection which clearly and specifically points out in accordance with properly providing the requirement satisfying the initial burden of proof based on the Guidance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the burden now shifts to the applicant.
Therefore, based on the above analysis as conducted based on the Guidance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office the claims are viewed as a court recognized abstract idea, are viewed as a judicial exception, does not integrate the claims into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept, therefore the claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Zimmermann et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0027006 A1) discloses a system and method for securing an enterprise computing environment.
Pradhan et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0220253 A1) discloses a system and method for improving software code quality using artificial intelligence techniques.
Wagner et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0004521 A1) discloses systems and methods for generating industry outlook scores.
Alpert et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0127271 A1) discloses a trend prediction.
PAUL et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0320694 A1) discloses systems and methods for generating a trend forecast and an explanation.
Elgressy et al. (U.S. Patent 11,636,213 B1) discloses a system and methods for reducing an organization’s cybersecurity risk based on modeling and segmentation of employees.
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 STEPHEN S SWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 - 6:00.
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, Boswell Beth can be reached at 571 272-6737. 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.
/S.S.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights