CTFR 18/227,759 CTFR 78980 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-4,6-11,13-18,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind. Regarding claim 1, with the exception of the limitations ‘a memory device with computer-readable program code stored thereon; at least one processing device operatively coupled to the at least one memory device and the at least one communication device, wherein executing the computer-readable code is configured to cause the at least one processing device to’, the claims recites mental processes. The limitations ‘determine a set of root cause analysis from the analyzed set of file extensions using a root cause database, wherein the root cause database is comprised of previously encountered file extensions and associated root cause analyses and identifies a code origin of the error and source of the error’ is a mental process concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion while using a computer as a tool. Step 2A: Prong two This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘a memory device with computer-readable program code stored thereon; at least one processing device operatively coupled to the at least one memory device and the at least one communication device, wherein executing the computer-readable code is configured to cause the at least one processing device to; analyze the set of file extensions using an advanced computation model for data analysis and automated decision-making, wherein analysis of the set of file extensions further comprises validating whether the decryption certificate associated with the at least one piece of software is up to date, wherein analyzing the set of file extensions further comprises identifying the error associated with a connection and identify secondary sets of file extensions associated with the connection and confirm decryption certificate status on the secondary sets of file extensions; summarize the set of root cause analysis using the advanced computation model for data analysis and automated decision-making and a predetermined database of identifiers’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2B The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘receive a set of file extensions associated with an error generated from an at least one piece of software, wherein the set of file extensions comprises a record of events and actions from the at least one piece of software, and a decryption certificate associated with the at least one piece of software; transmit the summarized set of root cause analysis associated with the error generated from the at least one piece of software to an end-point device, wherein the transmission of the summarized set of root cause analysis associated with the error generated from the at least one piece of software comprises: a notification identifying a root cause location within the at least one piece of software associated with the error generated within the at least one piece of software; a notification defining the error generated within the at least one piece of software; a notification identifying the set of file extensions associated with the error generated from the at least one piece of software; and a notification providing a diagnosis of a source of the error‘ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). These limitations are directed to data gathering and output of information. Regarding claim 2, the limitation ‘wherein analysis of the set of file extensions using advanced computation models for data analysis and automated decision-making comprises searching a secondary set of file extensions associated with the generated error’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Regarding claim 3, the limitation ‘wherein summarizing the set of root cause analysis using the advanced computation model for data analysis and automated decision-making and a predetermined database of identifiers comprises forming the summary of the set of root cause analysis using terms found within the database of identifiers’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Regarding claim 4, the limitation ‘wherein determination of the root cause analysis comprises: transfer the set of file extensions to an external source’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)); ‘determine the set of root cause analysis using the external source’ is a mental process - concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion while using a computer as a tool; and ‘store the set of root cause analysis and associated set of file extensions within the root cause database’ MPEP 2106.05(d) iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Regarding claim 6, the limitation ‘wherein the set of root cause analysis transmitted to the end-point device comprises: a summary of a root cause of the error; and a location of the error identified on the at least one piece of software’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Regarding claim 7, the limitation ‘wherein transmission of the summarized set of root cause analysis associated with the error generated from the at least one piece of software further comprises an input transmitted to the end-point device associated with the set of root cause analysis’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Regarding claim 8, with the exception of the limitations ‘A computer program product for using advanced computation models for data analysis and automated decision-making for root cause analysis within software, the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer- readable program code portions embodied therein, the computer-readable program code portions comprising: an executable program code portion configured to’, the claims recites mental processes. The limitations ‘determine a set of root cause analysis from the analyzed set of file extensions using a root cause database and validation of the decryption certificate associated with the at least one piece of software, wherein the root cause database is comprised of previously encountered file extensions and associated root cause analyses and identifies a code origin of the error and source of the error’ is a mental process concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion while using a computer as a tool. Step 2A: Prong two This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘a memory device with computer-readable program code stored thereon; at least one processing device operatively coupled to the at least one memory device and the at least one communication device, wherein executing the computer-readable code is configured to cause the at least one processing device to; analyze the set of file extensions using an advanced computation model for data analysis and automated decision-making, wherein the analysis of the set of file extensions further comprises validating whether the decryption certificate associated with the at least one piece of software is up to date, wherein analyzing the set of file extensions further comprises identifying the error associated with a connection and identify secondary sets of file extensions associated with the connection and confirm decryption certificate status on the secondary sets of file extensions; summarize the set of root cause analysis using the advanced computation model for data analysis and automated decision-making and a predetermined database of identifiers’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2B The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘receive a set of file extensions associated with an error generated from an at least one piece of software, wherein the set of file extensions comprises a record of events and actions from the at least one piece of software; transmit the summarized set of root cause analysis associated with the error generated from the at least one piece of software to an end-point device, wherein the transmission of the summarized set of root cause analysis associated with the error generated from the at least one piece of software comprises: a notification identifying a root cause location within the at least one piece of software associated with the error generated within the at least one piece of software a notification defining the error generated within the at least one piece of software; a notification identifying the set of file extensions associated with the error generated from the at least one piece of software; and a notification providing a diagnosis of a source of the error‘ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). These limitations are directed to data gathering and output of information. Regarding claim 9, the limitation ‘wherein analysis of the set of file extensions using advanced computation models for data analysis and automated decision-making comprises searching a secondary set of file extensions associated with the generated error’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Regarding claim 10, the limitation ‘wherein summarizing the set of root cause analysis using the advanced computation model for data analysis and automated decision-making and a predetermined database of identifiers comprises forming the summary of the set of root cause analysis using terms found within the database of identifiers’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Regarding claim 11, the limitation ‘wherein determination of the root cause analysis comprises: transfer the set of file extensions to an external source’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)); ‘determine the root cause analysis using the external source’ is a mental process - concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion while using a computer as a tool; and ‘store the root cause analysis and associated set of file extensions within the root cause database’ MPEP 2106.05(d) iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Regarding claim 13, the limitation ‘wherein the set of root cause analysis transmitted to the end-point device comprises: a summary of a root cause of the error; and a location of the error identified on the at least one piece of software’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Regarding claim 14, the limitation ‘wherein transmission of the summarized set of root cause analysis associated with the error generated from the at least one piece of software further comprises an input transmitted to the end-point device associated with the set of root cause analysis’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Regarding claim 15, the claim recites mental processes. The limitations ‘determining a set of root cause analysis from the analyzed set of file extensions using a root cause database and validation of the decryption certificate associated with the at least one piece of software, wherein the root cause database is comprised of previously encountered file extensions and associated root cause analyses and identifies a code origin of the error and source of the error’ is a mental process concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion while using a computer as a tool. Step 2A: Prong two This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘analyzing the set of file extensions using an advanced computation model for data analysis and automated decision-making, wherein the analysis of the set of file extensions further comprises validating whether the decryption certificate associated with the at least one piece of software is up to date, wherein analyzing the set of file extensions further comprises identifying the error associated with a connection and identify secondary sets of file extensions associated with the connection and confirm decryption certificate status on the secondary sets of file extensions; summarizing the set of root cause analysis using the advanced computation model for data analysis and automated decision-making and a predetermined database of identifiers’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2B The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘receiving a set of file extensions associated with an error generated from an at least one piece of software, wherein the set of file extensions comprises a record of events and actions from the at least one piece of software, and a decryption certificate associated with the at least one piece of software; transmitting the summarized set of root cause analysis associated with the error generated from the at least one piece of software to an end-point device, wherein the transmission of the summarized set of root cause analysis associated with the error generated from the at least one piece of software comprises: a notification identifying a root cause location within the at least one piece of software associated with the error generated within the at least one piece of software; a notification defining the error generated within the at least one piece of software; a notification identifying the set of file extensions associated with the error generated from the at least one piece of software; and a notification providing a diagnosis of a source of the error‘ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). These limitations are directed to data gathering and output of information. Regarding claim 16, the limitation ‘wherein analyzing the set of file extensions using advanced computation models for data analysis and automated decision-making comprises searching a secondary set of file extensions associated with the generated error’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Regarding claim 17, the limitation ‘wherein summarizing the set of root cause analysis using the advanced computation model for data analysis and automated decision-making and a predetermined database of identifiers comprises forming the summary of the set of root cause analysis using terms found within the database of identifiers’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Regarding claim 18, the limitations ‘wherein determining of the root cause analysis comprises: transferring the set of file extensions to an external source’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)); ‘determining the root cause analysis using the external source’ is a mental process - concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion while using a computer as a tool; and ‘storing the root cause analysis and associated set of file extensions within the root cause database’ MPEP 2106.05(d) iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Regarding claim 20, the limitation ‘wherein transmitting the summarized set of root cause analysis associated with the error generated from the at least one piece of software further comprises an input transmitted to the end-point device associated with the set of root cause analysis’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered. Concerning Applicant’s arguments of the 101 abstract idea rejection, Applicant’s Representative points to indicating an improvement in computer functionality model performance in root cause analysis and reconciliation within software components. The Examiner has considered these arguments however there are not persuasive. The analyzing the set of file extensions further comprises identifying the error associated with a connection and identify secondary sets of file extensions associated with the connection and confirm decryption certificate status on the secondary sets of file extensions is just generically stating the information to be output by the model. Certain limitations of the claims are able to be performed in the human mind with the aid of a computer as a tool. Please see the above rejection. The limitations are tied to generic computer components which does not result in an eligible claim. The claim limitations were not rejected under organizing human activity nor mathematical concepts. The advanced computation model that is disclosed to output certain information is merely a generic model and is not described in detail as to how it is trained. The cases pertaining to 101 abstract idea have been considered but the claimed limitations do not include additional elements to overcome the 101 abstract idea rejection. The notification component transmitting the notifications is merely insignificant extra-solution activity. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 Yolanda L Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-3653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30 am - 4 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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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. /Yolanda L Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/227,759 Page 2 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/227,759 Page 3 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/227,759 Page 4 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/227,759 Page 5 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/227,759 Page 6 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/227,759 Page 7 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/227,759 Page 8 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/227,759 Page 9 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/227,759 Page 10 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/227,759 Page 11 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/227,759 Page 12 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/227,759 Page 13 Art Unit: 2113 Application/Control Number: 18/227,759 Page 14 Art Unit: 2113
Prosecution Insights