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 office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 07/13/2026.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-20 are pending and examined.
Claims 7 and 14 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Per 103 rejection, applicant’s arguments filed on 07/13/2026 have been fully considered. However, the claims are rejected under new grounds of a rejection with new mappings (see the updated 103 rejection below).
Per claim 4, applicant argued that “Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection for at least the reason that the rejected claims as amended recite at least one limitation not disclosed in the cited art of record. In particular, page 9 of the Office Action cites Saxena par. [0049], as disclosing Applicant's "registering the computing device with a group of known devices." However, here Saxena refers to the results of a completed software installation, and not actually registering the computing device for the purpose of allowing software installations, as in Applicant's Specification par. [0035]: " the computing device may also be registered with a group of known devices for the purposes of software installations." In contrast, Saxena discloses: "The information regarding installation of the new application 220 transmitted from the user device 202 to the content distribution system 206 can include an indication that the new application 220 has been installed on the user device 202 and further include a second identifier 222 identifying the user device 202”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Saxena suggests the limitations of “registering the computing device with a group of known devices” (paragraph [0049]; after successful installations of an application on user devices, the identifier of the application and the identifiers of the user devices (a group of known computing devices) are registered and saved to a server). The claim limitation does not include registering the computing device for the purpose of allowing software installations. Since Saxena discloses the identifiers of user devices are saved/registered after a successful installation of an application, Saxena discloses the above limitations.
Per 101 abstract idea rejection, applicant argued “claims as amended are directed to a technical solution to a technical problem”. However, claim 1 recited mental steps that can be performed in a human mind (see the 101 rejection below), and other steps that are known in the field of the art (see 103 rejection below). It is not clear how the claimed invention is different from the existing technology. In another word, which steps in the claimed invention solve the technical problem (repeating successful installation of an application on a plurality of devices). Therefore, 101 abstract idea rejection is maintained.
The examiner is available for a phone interview with applicant.
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 1-6, 8-13, 15-20 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, mathematical relationship or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Statutory Category: Claim 1 recites a method, comprising: method comprising: detecting by a software installation guidance module an initiation of a software application on a computing device by recognizing a manual input by the computing device or an automatically initiated installation by a remote computing device; capturing by the software installation guidance module from the computing device experiential data about a software installation, comprising status codes, screen recording of command line inputs, and replayable input sequences, wherein the experiential data is stored in a database; training a supervised machine learning model on database data comprising historical experiential data using one or more of logistic regression, naïve Bayes, support vector machines, deep neural networks, random forest, decision tree, gradient-boosted tree, multilayer perception; predicting, by the supervised machine learning model, an equivalent installation in successful installation data, wherein the equivalent installation comprises a prior installation of the software application having a common characteristic to a current installation of the software application; and reproducing the predicted equivalent installation on the computing device.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Claim 1 recites: detecting by a software installation guidance module an initiation of a software application on a computing device by recognizing a manual input by the computing device or an automatically initiated installation by a remote computing device (a user can see, thus detect an installation of a software application); predicting, an equivalent installation in successful installation data, wherein the equivalent installation comprises a prior installation of the software application having a common characteristic to a current installation of the software application; and reproducing the predicted equivalent installation on the computing device (a mental step of prediction). That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under step 2A prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as “capturing by the software installation guidance module from the computing device experiential data about a software installation, comprising status codes, screen recording of command line inputs, and replayable input sequences, wherein the experiential data is
stored in a database”, which is an extra solution activity of capturing installation data, that is a Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional (WURC) Activity, as evidenced in Eromenko (paragraphs [0027][0023][0024][0026]; a recording module to record user interaction with a computer system during a manual installation, including keyboard input, mouse clicks, and screenshots). 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 an abstract idea under Prong II step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as “training a supervised machine learning model on database data comprising historical experiential data using one or more of logistic regression, naïve Bayes, support vector machines, deep neural networks, random forest, decision tree, gradient-boosted tree, multilayer perception;”, which is an extra solution activity of training a machine learning model with historical data, that is a Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional (WURC) Activity, as evidenced in Langston (paragraph [0057]; user device may successfully install software using the click area prediction model, and may provide, to modeling device, information associated with the successful software installation, and modeling device may update the click area prediction model based on the information). 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 an abstract idea under Prong II step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as reproducing the predicted equivalent installation on the computing device, which is a post solution activity of reproducing a software installation, that is a Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional (WURC) Activity, as evidenced in Eromenko (paragraph [0027]; the input generating module generates the same user input as the recorded user input for the input request, and sends the user input into the virtual machine on which the guest operating system is to be installed). 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 an abstract idea under Prong II step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-6 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 dependent claims 2-6 recite more steps of a mental process (such as generating, determining, predict) which can be performed mentally or using pen and paper. The additional element of dependent claims 2-6 recite more extra-solution activities (capturing, recording, transmitting, registering, associating, storing, reproducing, using a machine learning model), which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant, routine additional element). Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 8 (a system with memory and a processor to perform the method of claim 1) with dependent claims 9-13 are rejected under the similar rational as claims 1-6. The additional elements in the claim amount to no more than generic hardware component with instructions to apply the exception, which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Independent claim 15 (a storage medium storing instructions to perform the method similar to claim 1) with dependent claims 16-20 are rejected under the similar rational as claims 1-6. The additional elements in the claim amount to no more than generic hardware component with instructions to apply the exception, which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eromenko et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0004872) hereinafter Eromenko, in view of Langston et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0039054) hereinafter Langston and in view of Saxena et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0379559) hereinafter Saxena.
Per claim 1, Eromenko discloses a method comprising: detecting by a software installation guidance module an initiation of a software application on a computing device by recognizing a manual input by the computing device or an automatically initiated installation by a remote computing device; capturing by the software installation guidance module from the computing device
experiential data about a software installation, comprising screen recording of command line inputs, and replayable input sequences, wherein the experiential data is stored in a database (paragraphs [0027][0023][0024][0026][0010][0011]; during an automated installation, the installation manager intercepts and redirects the input request images to a file (detecting an automatic installation); a recording module to record user interaction with a computer system during a manual installation (recording successful installation data), including keyboard input (input sequence) and screenshots (screen recording), the recorded data is stored in a data memory); the manual installation data is retrieved, an input generating module generates a user input based on the user input previously recorded during the manual installation); predicting, an equivalent installation in successful installation data, wherein the equivalent installation comprises a prior installation of the software application having a common characteristic to a current installation of the software application; and reproducing the predicted equivalent installation on the computing device (paragraphs [0027][0023][0024][0026]; comparing screenshots of the current installation to the saved screenshots of a past manual installation; if they match (a common characteristic), an input generating module generates (predicts) a user input based on the user input previously recorded during the manual installation, sends the user input into the virtual machine on which the guest operating system is to be installed).
Eromenko does not explicitly teach training a supervised machine learning model on database data comprising historical experiential data using one or more of logistic regression, naïve Bayes, support vector machines, deep neural networks, random forest, decision tree, gradient-boosted tree,
multilayer perception; and using the supervised machine learning model, to predict an equivalent installation in successful installation data. However, Langston suggests the above (paragraphs [0002][0057]; using historical successful installation information to train and update a machine learning model, the historical successful installation information includes user decisions (which options use clicked), i.e. training a decision tree model; the trained machined learning model can then select identified features to cause an equivalent software installation to proceed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Eromenko and Langston to save information on a successful installation (including user inputs and screenshots), which can be reused in future to repeat the successful installation (a more convenient installation process).
Eromenko does not explicitly teach capturing by the software installation guidance module from the computing device experiential data about a software installation, comprising status codes. However, Saxena suggests the above (paragraph [0049]; after successful installations of an application on user devices, the identifier of the application and the identifiers of the user devices (indicating a successful installation status) are saved to a server). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Eromenko, Langston and Saxena to register and save the device identifiers of the successful installations to a database, as this usage information can be helpful to software developers.
Per claim 2, Eromenko further discloses capturing selected options for the current installation of the software application at the computing device; recording command line inputs associated with the selected options for the current installation of the software application at the computing device;
recording screen images of the computing device associated with the current installation of the software application; and generating a replayable input sequence based on the selected options, the command line inputs and the screen images (paragraphs [0027][0023][0024][0026]; a recording module to record user interaction with a computer system during a manual installation, including keyboard input (command line input), mouse clicks (selected options), and screenshots; an input generating module generates a user input for the current installation based on previously saved installation data).
Per claim 3, Langston in view of Eromenko suggests determining that the current installation of the software application is completed successfully on the computing device; and transmitting a notification of an availability of the successful installation data, wherein the successful installation data includes the selected options, the command line inputs, the screen images and the replayable input sequence (Langston, paragraphs [0002][0057]; using historical successful installation information to train and update a machine learning model, the trained machined learning model can then select identified features to cause an equivalent software installation to proceed); (Eromenko, paragraphs [0027][0023][0024][0026]; a recording module to record user interaction with a computer system during a manual installation, including keyboard input (command line input), mouse clicks (selected options), and screenshots).
Per claim 4, Saxena further suggests registering the computing device with a group of known devices, wherein the group of known devices includes the known computing device; associating the group of known devices with a successful installation database; and storing the successful installation data in the successful installation database (paragraph [0049]; after successful installations of an application on user devices, the identifier of the application and the identifiers of the user devices (a group of known computing devices) are registered and saved to a server).
Per claim 5, Eromenko further discloses wherein the reproducing the equivalent installation on the computing device comprises performing actions of the replayable input sequence automatically on the computing device (paragraphs [0027][0023][0024][0026]; a recording module to record user interaction with a computer system during a manual installation, including keyboard input (command line input), mouse clicks (selected options), and screenshots; an input generating module generates a user input for the current installation based on previously saved installation data).
Per claim 6, Eromenko further discloses wherein the reproducing the equivalent installation on the computing device comprises a user of the computing device manually performing one or more actions on the computing device, wherein the actions are selected from a group consisting of: entering the selected options on the computing device, entering the command line inputs on the computing device, and reproducing the screen images (paragraphs [0027][0023][0024][0026]; a recording module to record user interaction with a computer system during a manual installation, including keyboard input (command line input), mouse clicks (selected options), and screenshots; an input generating module generates a user input for the current installation based on previously saved installation data).
Claims 8-13 are rejected under similar rationales as claims 1-6.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under similar rationales as claims 1-6.
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 HANG PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7667. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/HANG PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights