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 action is in response-to-response field on 11/11/2025. This action is FINAL.
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.
Claim 1,4-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites, “training, by one or more processors, a machine learning model to predict a resiliency of a particular software application” and “applying, by the one or more processors, the trained machine learning model…to predict an error rate and determine a resiliency for the second software application…determining a severity of resiliency issues…determining a likelihood of resiliency”. The limitations of “training”, “applying”, “predict”, “determine”, “determining”, and “determining” as drafted are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “obtaining… one or more software construction variables”, “obtaining… one or more software operation variables”, “obtaining… an error rate”, “obtaining… at least one software construction variable and at least one software operation variable”, and “presenting… an indication of resiliency of the second software application for display”. The additional elements of “obtaining” are mere data gathering and “presenting…a display” recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (‘whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and displaying, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Further, the limitations “by one or more processors” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, regarding the applying limitation – even if disagreement is made regarding its interpretation under the prong 1 of the abstract idea, the applying to limitation (if considered under prong 2) would amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea as stated under MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception
Under Step 2B, 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 elements of “presenting…for display” is recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities, “by one or more processors” amounts to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, and for the limitations of “obtaining” the courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 4-8, the additional elements are neither a practical application under prong 2, not an inventive concept under step 2B.
Claim 9, the additional limitations, “correlates the one or more software construction variable and the one or more software operation variables to the error rate”, recites a further mental process and the additional elements “providing… for display” are neither a practical application user prong 2, not an inventive concept under step 2B.
Claim 10, the additional limitations, “identifying” and “training”, recites a further mental process and the additional elements “providing… for display” are neither a practical application user prong 2, not an inventive concept under step 2B.
Claims 11, the additional elements are neither a practical application under prong 2, not an inventive concept under step 2B.
Claims 12 and 15-20, claims 12 and 15-20 contain similar limitations to claim 1 and 4-9 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 U.S.C
§
101
Applicant argues:
“Claim 1 recites, in part, "applying ... the trained machine learning model to the at least one software construction variable and the at least one software operation variable associated with the second software application to predict an error rate for the second software application and determine a resiliency for the second software application based upon the predicted error rate," and "presenting ... a display including (i) an indication of a risk score based on the severity and/or likelihood of resiliency issues for the second software application, (ii) indications of a plurality of risk factors which contributed to the risk score, and (iii) weighted contributions of each risk factor to the risk score."
An example of this feature is shown in Figure 7 and described in pars. 82-84 of Applicant's specification which state:
The risk score display 700 may include an application risk score 702 which represents the total resiliency risk and is based upon a ten-point scale. The risk score display 700 also may include a series of weighted variables or risk factors 704 which contributed to the application risk score 702. The weight of each risk factor may be derived from the historical behavior of the software application and is a predictive indicator of where failure is likely to occur in the future.
For instance, risk factors may include a test practices factor 706, a code complexity factor 708, a modularity factor 710, a change frequency factor 712, and an app-to- app integrations factor 714 ...
In this particular case, the test practices factor 706 may be assigned a value of 31% indicating that test practices contributed 31% of the total resiliency risk. The code complexity factor 708 may be assigned a value of 29%, the modularity factor 710 may be assigned a value of 15%, the change frequency factor 712 may be assigned a value of 15%, and the app-to-app integrations factor 714 may be assigned a value of 10%. ... Based on the weighted contributions 706-714, the test practices factor 706 contributes the most to the application risk score 702 followed by the code complexity 708.
Accordingly, the claimed invention improves the user interface in IT systems by not only displaying a risk score, but also displaying a plurality of risk factors which contributed to the risk score and weighted contributions of each risk factor to the risk score. This results in an improved display as in Core Wireless which allows the user to identify where failure is likely to occur in the future. As in Core Wireless, this improves the "efficiency of using the electronic device," by notifying the user of the most important risk factors, so that the user can efficiently resolve potential issues with the software application. The user does not have to use trial and error to reduce the risk score by repeatedly guessing which issues need to be resolved with the application and running the machine learning model again until the risk score is sufficiently reduced. Instead, by notifying the user of the most important risk factors, the user can resolve the issues in a minimal number of attempts.
Thus, the claimed invention improves the user interface in IT systems. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are directed to statutory subject matter. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests the rejection of claims 1, 4-12, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. A display such as a computer monitor merely displays information that is generated by a computer processor. Nothing more, nothing less. Therefore, no matter how detailed, intricate or informative the displayed information is, the monitor is merely performing its intended, routine, generic function. Therefore, irrespective of what is being displayed, there is no improvement to the functionality of the computer, or to any other technology or technical field. Further, Core Wireless is not relevant to the facts of the instant application. In Core Wireless, the court found an improvement in computer-functionality not just based on what is being displayed, but because “where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application.” No launching of an application is found in the claims of the instant claims. Therefore, reliance on Core Wireless is not persuasive. For these reasons above the current rejection stands.
Conclusion
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 MARK A GOORAY whose telephone number is (571)270-7805. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3759. 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.
/MARK A GOORAY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199