diu 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. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. 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 because 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. Claims 1, 8 and 15 as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “ creating a representation of the software in a virtual reality environment; identifying an error in the software based on error logs generated by the software; identifying one or more of the plurality of software components and the application programing interfaces that correspond to the error ” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of mental processes. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recites the following additional elements “a computing system,” “ performing a task in the software based on the corrective action, wherein the task is configured to address the error ,” “A system having a memory having computer readable instructions and one or more processors for executing the computer readable instructions, the computer readable instructions controlling the one or more processors to perform operations”, “a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform operations” and “ receiving a request to diagnose the software, the software including a plurality of software components configured to communicate with each other via application programing interfaces ” , “displaying a visual indication of the error in the virtual reality environment, wherein the visual indication is determined based on a type of the error; receiving, via the virtual reality environment, a corrective action from a user”. The additional elements “a computing system,” “performing a task in the software based on the corrective action, wherein the task is configured to address the error,” “A system having a memory having computer readable instructions and one or more processors for executing the computer readable instructions, the computer readable instructions controlling the one or more processors to perform operations”, “a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform operations” are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element “receiving a request to diagnose the software, the software including a plurality of software components configured to communicate with each other via application programing interfaces”, “displaying a visual indication of the error in the virtual reality environment, wherein the visual indication is determined based on a type of the error; receiving, via the virtual reality environment, a corrective action from a user” does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea to perform a task. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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 element “a computing system,” “performing a task in the software based on the corrective action, wherein the task is configured to address the error,” “A system having a memory having computer readable instructions and one or more processors for executing the computer readable instructions, the computer readable instructions controlling the one or more processors to perform operations”, “a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform operations” are generic computer components and instructions used as the tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As to the additional element “receiving a request to diagnose the software, the software including a plurality of software components configured to communicate with each other via application programing interfaces”, “displaying a visual indication of the error in the virtual reality environment, wherein the visual indication is determined based on a type of the error; receiving, via the virtual reality environment, a corrective action from a user” the courts have identified gathering data and displaying the output of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible. Claims 2, 9 and 16 further define the representation as part of “creating” function set forth in the claims from which they depend , thus, are also considered to recite a mental process that can be reasonably carried out through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Claims 3-5, 10-12, and 17-19 further define the visual indication function set forth in the claim from which they depend, thus does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea to perform a task. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the courts have identified gathering data and displaying the output of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible. Claims 6, 13 and 20, further define the corrective action as part of the “receiving” function set forth in the claim from which they depend, thus does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea to perform a task. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the courts have identified gathering data and displaying the output of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible. Claims 7 and 14 further define the “performing a task in the software” function set for the in the claim from which they depend, thus are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, 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 element are generic computer components and instructions used as the tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmirler (US 2018/0131907 A1) in view of Monga (US20210112145A1). Regarding Claim 1 , Schmirler (US 2018/0131907 A1) teaches A method for repairing a software of a computing system, the method comprising: receiving a request to diagnose the software, the software including a plurality of software components configured to communicate with each other via application programing interfaces; (Para. [0053]: " the virtual or augmented reality presentations can include, but are not limited to, ... topology information, controls, firmware, connections, problems, alarms, training, human machine interface, ... troubleshooting ..."; Para. [0057]: " a monitoring component of the VR/AR presentation system can identify a maintenance issue based on analysis of substantially real-time system data ... current or historical alarms or faults ... "; Para. [0110]: " the user may request ... diagnostic data for any of the devices ...") Examiner Comments: Schmirler teaches receiving user-initiated diagnostic requests via VR interfaces for interconnected software components (controllers, firmware) that communicate via network interfaces (APIs), with alarms/faults from system data (error logs) triggering diagnosis. creating a representation of the software in a virtual reality environment; (Para. [0005]: " rendering, by the system on a wearable appliance based on the industrial data, an augmented reality representation of the industrial facility ..."; Para. [0102]: " the rendering component 308 can render a current operating mode ... for the press or other such information .") Examiner Comments: Schmirler creates immersive VR/AR representations of the system, including 3D models of software-driven components and their interconnections. identifying an error in the software based on error logs generated by the software; (Para. [0057]: " a monitoring component of the VR/AR presentation system can identify a maintenance issue based on analysis of substantially real-time system data ... current or historical alarms or faults ..."; Para. [0104]: " current or historical alarms or faults for the press ...") Examiner Comments: Schmirler identifies errors/faults directly from system logs and alarms in the software-controlled automation environment. identifying one or more of the plurality of software components and the application programing interfaces that correspond to the error; (Para. [0053]: " connections, problems, alarms ... "; Para. [0110]: " the user may request ... diagnostic data for any of the devices ... ") Examiner Comments: Schmirler maps errors to specific components (devices) and their connections (interfaces) for targeted diagnosis. displaying a visual indication of the error in the virtual reality environment, wherein the visual indication is determined based on a type of the error; (Para. [0056]: " the presentation system may superimpose a current operating status ... (e.g., a current speed, a fault condition ...)"; Para. [0053]: " problems, alarms ...") Examiner Comments: Schmirler displays type-specific visual overlays (e.g., fault icons, status changes) in the VR environment based on error type from logs . receiving, via the virtual reality environment, a corrective action from a user; and (Para. [0110]: " the user can send a request to ... for additional information ... or that identifies (e.g., using a graphical overlay) which of the drives are currently configured with an outdated firmware version .") Examiner Comments: Schmirler receives user gestures and inputs in the VR environment as corrective actions. performing a task in the software based on the corrective action, wherein the task is configured to address the error. (Para. [0115]: " wearable appliance 206 can direct a momentary or latching ON command to the appropriate register ... causing a logical 1 bit to be written ..."; Para. [0107]: " if the command is a binary instruction—such as an alarm reset command, a start command, or a stop command—the wearable appliance 206 can direct a momentary ...") Examiner Comments: Schmirler performs software tasks (e.g., commands, restarts, reconfigurations) in response to VR user actions to address identified errors. Monga (US 2021/0112145 A1) further teaches receiving a request to diagnose the software, the software including a plurality of software components configured to communicate with each other via application programing interfaces; (Para [0058], “ The VR/AR framework can receive real-time (or near-real-time) signals 122, metrics, analytics, or other data, from or associated with the physical data center equipment, servers, racks, sensors, or other devices, and other information or data 124 via a data convergence layer or component 126 ...” Para [0067] “ The information can include data center related analytics, for example, describing which are the problems that have occurred with a particular data center component.” (Detailed Description, system overview ”) Examiner Comments: Monga teaches receiving diagnostic requests in VR/AR for data center/cloud software (servers, services as components communicating via APIs, SNMP, streaming telemetry), identifying errors from logs/telemetry in software architectures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Schmirler’s teaching to Monga’s teaching of VR/AR diagnostic representations for interconnected systems (including software in data centers) in order to provide an intuitive physical metaphor for abstract software troubleshooting, making diagnostics accessible to hardware-trained technicians as motivated by Schmirler on softwareization challenges and Monga’s data center software analytics. Regarding Claim 2, Schmirler and Monga teach The method of claim 1. Schmirler further teaches wherein the representation includes displaying each of the plurality of software components of the software as physical devices and displaying each application programing interface between the plurality of software components as wired connections between the physical devices. (Para. [0085]: " The plant models 524 also define the physical relationships between the industrial assets, including relative positions and orientations of the assets on the plant floor, conduit or plumbing that runs between the assets, and other physical definitions ."; Para. [0085]: " graphical representations of the industrial assets—including machines, conveyors, control cabinets, and/or industrial devices ...") Examiner Comments: Schmirler2 explicitly teaches 3D VR representations where software-controlled assets (components) are displayed as physical devices with conduit/connections (wired links) between them. Regarding Claim 3, Schmirler and Monga teach The method of claim 2. Schmirler further teaches wherein the visual indication includes a modification of one of the displayed physical devices and the wired connections. (Para. [0062]: " Rendering component 308 can be configured to retrieve a suitable virtual reality or augmented reality presentation for rendering on a user's wearable appliance, and modify or enhance the presentation with real-time or historical data retrieved from one or more industrial devices .") Regarding Claim 4 , Schmirler and Monga teach The method of Claim 3. Schmirler further teaches wherein a type of the visual indication is based on the error logs. (Para. [0104]: " current or historical alarms or faults for the press ...") Examiner Comments: Schmirler bases visual types (e.g., fault icons) directly on log-derived alarms. Regarding Claim 5 , Schmirler and Monga teach The method of Claim 4. Schmirler further teaches wherein the type of the visual indication includes one or more of a loose wire connection between two of the plurality of software components, one of the wired connections including a damaged wire, and one of the physical devices being broken. (Para. [0085]: " conduit or plumbing that runs between the assets "; Para. [0146]: " fault condition ") Examiner Comments: Schmirler2 teaches visual fault indicators analogous to loose/damaged wires and broken devices in the physical 3D model. Regarding Claim 6 , Schmirler and Monga teach The method of Claim 2. Schmirler further teaches wherein the corrective action includes a manipulation of one of the physical devices and the wired connections in the virtual reality environment. (Para. [0062]: " Rendering component 308 can be configured to retrieve a suitable virtual reality or augmented reality presentation for rendering on a user's wearable appliance, and modify or enhance the presentation with real-time or historical data retrieved from one or more industrial devices, live or historical video feeds of the plant floor, or other information .") Regarding Claim 7 , Schmirler and Monga teach The method of Claim 2. Schmirler further teaches wherein the task includes one of restarting one of the plurality of software components, increasing a number of resources allocated to one of the plurality of software components, and reconfiguring a communications protocol setup between two of the plurality of software components. (Para. [0115]: " start command, or a stop command"; "setpoint adjustments"; "alarm reset commands .") Examiner Comments: Schmirler maps VR actions to tasks like restarts, resource allocation (setpoints), and reconfigurations. Regarding Claim 8, is a system claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 1) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding Claim 9, is a system claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 2) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2. Regarding Claim 10, is a system claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 3) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3. Regarding Claim 11, is a system claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 4) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4. Regarding Claim 12, is a system claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 5) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5. Regarding Claim 13, is a system claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 6) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6. Regarding Claim 14, is a system claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 7) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7. Regarding Claim 15, is a computer program product claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 1) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding Claim 16, is a computer program product claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 2) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2. Regarding Claim 17, is a computer program product claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 3) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3. Regarding Claim 18, is a computer program product claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 4) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4. Regarding Claim 19, is a computer program product claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 5) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5. Regarding Claim 20, is a computer program product claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 7) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT AMIR SOLTANZADEH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3451 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 9am - 5pm ET . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Wei Mui can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-3708 . 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. /AMIR SOLTANZADEH/ Examiner, Art Unit 2191 /WEI Y MUI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191