DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to communication filed on 7/14/2026.
The instant application having application No. 18/228,540 filed on July 31, 2023, presents claims 1-19 for examination. The instant application does not have priority data.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, and 4-19 are amended, claims 1-19 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
Regarding claim objections: Applicant amendments to claims appropriately addressed the objections to claims 6-9, the objections are withdrawn.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection: Amended claims are still abstract idea without significantly more. New grounds of 101 abstract idea rejections are presented in the office action below.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 15, -the update data-. Claims 2-11 are objected to for the same reason because they depend from claim 1.
Claim 12 has the same issue as claim 1 and is objected to for the same reason. Claims 13-19 are objected to for the same reason because they depend from claim 12.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a system claim under Step 1.
Under Prong 1, Step 2A:
However, the limitations of claim 1,
“deriving, […], feature information associated with the application data and the update data, wherein the application data comprises a plurality of code sections each having one or more code blocks and the update data defines a modification to at least one code block, wherein deriving the feature information comprises:
deriving connectivity feature information defining a connectivity of code blocks to a particular code section of the plurality of code sections that will be modified by update data;
deriving historical feature information defining a frequency of updates to the particular code section of the plurality of code sections that will be modified by the update data;
deriving activity feature information defining a number of times the particular code section of the plurality of code sections that will be modified by the update data is accessed in a time period,
combining the connectivity feature information, the historical feature information, and the activity feature information to form a multi-modal vector;
predicting, […], a failure probability for the update data that modifies the particular code section using the multi-modal vector;
and
initiating, responsive to the indication signifying the failure, an automated rollback procedure that includes:
identifying, using the connectivity feature information, one or more downstream code sections that depend from the particular code section;
reverting the one or more downstream code sections and the particular code section to a respective prior state that existed prior to application of the update data; and
generating […] a rollback event log associated with the automated rollback procedure.”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. human can manually derive feature information as defined in the claim, can manually derive connectivity feature information as defined in the claim, can manually derive historical feature information as defined in the claim, can manually derive activity information as defined in the claim, can manually combine the derived information to form a multi-modal vector, can manually predict a failure probability for the update data as defined in the claim, can manually initiate an automated rollback procedure as defined in the claim, can manually identify downstream code sections as defined in the claim, can manually revert the downstream code sections and the particular code section to a respective prior state as defined in the claim, can manually generate a rollback event log as defined in the claim. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2, Step 2A:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements
“A system”, “one or more processors”, “a memory”, “a prediction system”, “a server”, “a cloud computing system”, “a production environment”, “a neural network comprising a plurality of recurrent neural network layers trained with a machine learning algorithm”;
“operating a prediction system on a server or cloud computing system that is independent from a production environment executing application data and update data;”
“outputting an indication signifying a failure based on the failure probability satisfying a threshold;” and
“… storing in the memory a rollback event log associated with the automated rollback procedure”
These additional elements “A system”, “one or more processors”, “a memory”, “a prediction system”, “a server”, “a cloud computing system”, “a production environment”, “a neural network comprising a plurality of recurrent neural network layers trained with a machine learning algorithm”; are cited as generic computer/program components, or merely as a tool to implement the identified abstract idea, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f). The “operating …” limitation is merely using a computer (a server or cloud computing system) to implement the identified abstract idea, e.g. writing the identified mental processes into a computer program as a prediction system, and operating the prediction system on a computer. The “outputting …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity like transmitting data. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(g). The “storing …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity such as storing and retrieving information in memory, Refer to MPEP 2106.05(d) II.
Under Step 2B:
The claim does 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 “A system”, “one or more processors”, “a memory”, “a prediction system”, “a server”, “a cloud computing system”, “a production environment”, “a neural network comprising a plurality of recurrent neural network layers trained with a machine learning algorithm” are mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus, are not an inventive concept. The “operating …” limitation is merely using a computer (a server or cloud computing system) to implement the identified abstract idea, e.g. writing the identified mental processes into a computer program as a prediction system, and operating the prediction system on a computer. Thus, it is not an inventive concept. The “outputting …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity like transmitting data which is recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Symantec for receiving and transmitting data. The “storing …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity such as storing and retrieving information in memory which is recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, Refer to MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. for retrieving and storing data. Accordingly, even viewed as a whole, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claim 12, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a method claim under Step 1.
This claim recites a method that is disclosed in claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 1.
Claim 12 does not recite any additional element that is not recited in claim 1.
With respect to claims 2 and 13, “wherein deriving the feature information further comprises: determining a size of the particular code section that will be modified by the update data and outputting at least the size of the particular code section that will be modified by the update data as complexity feature information and the neural network is additionally trained using the complexity feature information.” The claim as drafted, is function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of a mental process. e.g. human can manually determine a size of the particular code section as defined in the claim; the “outputting …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity like transmitting data which is recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d). Training the neural network using the complexity feature information can be performed by human manually.
With respect to claims 3 and 14, “wherein deriving the feature information further comprises: determining a trust score for the update data and output at least a trust score for the update data as social feature information wherein the trust score includes at least a number of other successful code section changes made by a person that created the update data and, wherein the neural network is additionally trained using the trust score.” The claim as drafted, is function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of a mental process. e.g. human can manually determine a trust score for the update data as defined in the claim; the “output …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity like transmitting data which is recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d). Training the neural network using the trust score can be performed by human manually.
With respect to claims 4 and 15, “wherein the trust score further includes a tenure of the person that created the update data.” The claim as drafted, is function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of a mental process. e.g. human can manually calculate the trust score including consideration of a tenure of the person that created the update data.
With respect to claims 5 and 16, “wherein the trust score includes a score for rank or title within an organization for the person that created the update data.” The claim as drafted, is function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of a mental process. e.g. human can manually calculate the trust score including consideration of rank or title of the person that created the update data.
With respect to claims 6 and 17, “wherein deriving the feature information further comprises: determining a sentiment of code comments in the particular code section that will be modified by the update data and outputting at least a score for sentiment as comment feature information wherein the neural network is additionally trained using the score for sentiment.” The claim as drafted, is function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of a mental process. e.g. human can manually determine the sentiment of code comments as defined by the claim language; the “outputting …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity like transmitting data which is recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d). Training the neural network using the score for sentiment can be performed by human manually.
With respect to claims 7 and 18, “further comprising a sentiment analysis neural network trained with a machine learning algorithm to determine sentiment from text strings in code comments.” The claim as drafted, is function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of a mental process. That is, other than reciting “a sentiment analysis neural network trained with a machine learning algorithm”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a sentiment analysis neural network trained with a machine learning algorithm” language, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determine sentiment from text strings in the comments of code. “a sentiment analysis neural network trained with a machine learning algorithm”; is cited as generic computer/program component, or merely as a tool to implement the identified abstract idea, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and is not an inventive concept. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
With respect to claims 8 and 19, “wherein deriving the feature information further comprises determining a number of failures the particular code section that will be modified by the update data has experienced due to past updates and output the number of failures the particular code section that will be modified by the update data has experienced due to past updates as failure feature information wherein the neural network is additionally trained using the failure feature information.” The claim as drafted, is function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of a mental process. e.g. human can manually determine a number of failures as defined by the claim; the “output …” limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity like transmitting data which is recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d). Training the neural network using the failure feature information can be performed by human manually.
With respect to claim 9, “wherein the failure feature information further includes a number of reverts to original code.” The claim as drafted, is function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of a mental process. e.g. human can manually determine whether the failure feature information further includes a number of reverts to original code.
With respect to claim 10, “wherein the particular code section includes an entire file.” The claim as drafted, is function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of a mental process. e.g. human can manually determine whether the code section includes an entire file.
With respect to claim 11, “wherein the code section includes multiple files.” The claim as drafted, is function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of a mental process. e.g. human can manually determine whether the code section includes multiple files.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 101 abstract idea rejections filed 7/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At p9 last paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to a non-abstract improvement to the functionality and reliability of computer software integration networks. Under Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), a software-implemented invention is patent eligible under Step 2A of the USPTO subject matter eligibility guidance if the ordered combination is directed to a specific technological enhancement in computer operations rather than an abstract idea implemented on generic hardware.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as set forth in the office action, the limitations such as deriving… and predicting … are mental processes, and the additional elements are either insignificant extra-solution activities or merely using generic computer and software to implement the judicial exception, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not constitute an inventive concept. Enfish is not applicable here. For Enfish, its self-referential data table was a data table of the memory controller of the computer itself and thus the improvement was to the computer itself. By contrast, in the instant application, nothing of the computer itself is being altered, it functions as it ordinarily would and is merely used as a tool to perform the instant claimed functionalities.
At p10 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “The claimed architecture represents a concrete technological improvement in computer operations under the principles of Enfish. As discussed at Paragraph [0002], code bases feature interdependent code blocks where an update to one block can disrupt the operation of other code blocks across the system. Existing diagnostic solutions, such as standard tracing tools, are deficient because they 'do little to warn developers that an update to a particular section of code will cause the system to fail' (Paragraph [0003]).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as explained above, Enfish is not applicable here. Further, determining whether a code update would disrupt the operation of other code blocks and providing a warning are mental processes as human can manually perform these tasks. Thus, the determining and warning processes do not affect computer architecture and do not affect computer operations as the computer functions the same as it would before the instant application.
At p10 second paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “The claims resolve this technological failure by operating a prediction system on a separate server or cloud computing configuration that evaluates update risks independent from the live production environment. Evaluating updates within this independent configuration ensures that the volatile update changes ‘do not affect the production version of the system' (Paragraph [0022]). By providing the prediction system on a separate server or cloud, the update can safely be 'evaluated in an offline production environment' and only 'deployed online after passing offline evaluation' (Paragraph [0049]). Operating the verification framework via the claimed network topology provides a direct enhancement to computer functionality and code deployment safety, which, Applicant submits, is an improvement that is inherently patent eligible under Enfish.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as explained above, Enfish is not applicable here. Evaluating updates and determining deployment depending the evaluation results are mental processes. The separate server or cloud computing configuration are mere use of generic computer to implement the identified abstract idea. “Operating the verification framework via the claimed network topology” does not affect computer technology, the computer functions the same as it would before the instant application.
At p10 third paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “Applicant also respectfully submits that the claimed architecture provides such enhancement by establishing a specific network topology wherein a prediction system runs on a server or cloud computing environment that is separate from a production environment executing the application data and update files. …. As such, the claims provide a specific improvement in computer functionality that is patent eligible under Enfish.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as explained above, Enfish is not applicable here. The specific network topology is mental process as human can manually create the network topology, and the server/computer and cloud computing environment are merely used as tools to implement the mental process. Again, the computer technology is not affected, the computer functions the same as it would before the instant application.
At p10 last to p11 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “Furthermore, Applicant submits that the claims do not recite an abstract mental process, and that the claims cannot be practiced within a human mind or via manual human activity. Applicant submits that a human cannot operate a prediction system on an independent server or cloud architecture. No human mind can manually derive structural connectivity feature information, historical patch frequencies, and real-time operational access rates, nor combine these into a multi-modal vector. Moreover, a human is not capable of predicting a failure probability using a neural network of the prediction system comprising a plurality of trained recurrent neural network layers. Finally, a human mind cannot manually initiate an automated rollback procedure to identify one or more downstream code sections that depend from the particular code section, revert the sections to a respective prior state, and generate and store a rollback event log in the memory. As such, Applicant submits that the claimed steps reside entirely outside the boundary of human capability and are patent eligible under McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as set forth in the office action, and as explained above, the limitations such as deriving… and predicting … are mental processes. There is no reason why human can not manually derive structural connectivity feature information, historical patch frequencies, and combine these into a multi-modal vector. Examiner would like to point out that real-time operational access rates is not in the claims. Operating a prediction system on an independent server or cloud architecture is merely using a generic computer (server or cloud architecture) and computer software (neural network) to implement the identified abstract idea. Initiating rollback is mental process, e.g. human can write computer instructions to initiate rollback which may involve using a computer as a tool to implement it. Identifying downstream code sections, reverting the sections and generating rollback event log are mental processes. Storing a rollback event log is insignificant extra-solution activity and is recognized in MPEP as well understood, routine, and conventional activity. For McRO, the animation is not automation of a manual task, the improved animation
process can not be performed by human. Because no evidence that previous animation process is the same as that in McRo. Thus, McRO case is not applicable here.
At p11 second paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “Applicant respectfully submits that the claims also satisfy Step 2B by providing an unconventional, ordered combination of features. The claims do not merely add generic instructions to an abstract formula. Instead, Applicant submits that they restrict execution to a specific network topology requiring operating a prediction system on an independent server or cloud platform separate from a production environment. The prediction steps are executed within a neural network of the prediction system. This structural arrangement ensures the claim cannot preempt generic risk-modeling or standard analytics. By restricting the scope to these explicit operational rules and independent structural entities, the claims provide an inventive concept that improves network infrastructure deployment safety.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as set forth in the office action above, the claims recite abstract idea of mental processes such as deriving … and predicting … and the additional elements are either insignificant extra-solution activities or mere use of generic computer and computer software components (such as a neural network) to implement the mental processes, thus, the claims are abstract idea without significantly more. Preempting was not the basis for the 101 abstract idea rejections.
At p11 third paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “For at least these reasons, the Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the § 101 rejection of the pending claims.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as explained above, and as set forth in the office action, even viewed as a whole, the claims do not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 Zengpu Wei whose telephone number is 571-270-1302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets, can be reached on 571-272-3338. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/ZENGPU WEI/Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights