DETAILED ACTION
This action is made FINAL in response to the amendments filed on 4/09/2026.
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 –3, 6 - 9, 12 - 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One
Claims 1 - 3 and 6 are directed to a system with structural components.
Claims 7 - 9 and 12 are directed computer-implemented method
Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 13 – 18 recites a “computer-readable medium” that storea a software program performing a function. The Specification fails to expressly limit the recited “medium” to a statutory embodiment. Thus, the plain and ordinary meaning of the recited "medium" includes signals, carrier waves, etc. Accordingly, the recited “computer-readable storage media’ are not a process, a machine, a manufacture or a composition of matter.
As to claim 1,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
generate data instances from the time-series data, each data instance including a value of each of the plurality of metrics for a respective time period;
determine an operator-confirmed incident type label for each presented data instance based on input received from the operator;
determining, for each of a plurality of incident types, a set of the plurality of metrics to which the incident type is correlated based on the incident type labels assigned to the subset of the data instances, where the determined sets of the plurality of metrics include less than all of the plurality of metrics;
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Generating data instances and determining labels are mental processes and instances and labels are produced based on the humans knowledge and understanding. Humans have been determining labels before computers where ever invented.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
receive time-series data of each of a plurality of metrics;
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim further recites:
present the subset of the data instances and the assigned incident type labels to an operator;
these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim further recites:
train, using unsupervised learning, a first system based on the data instances to generate anomaly values
automatically assign incident type labels to a subset of the data instances based on the anomaly values and on incident classification models;
train one or more classification systems using supervised learning based on only those values of the subset of the data instances which are associated with metrics of the determined sets of the plurality of metrics and the operator-confirmed incident type labels.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The memory and processing unit are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In addition, the recitation of unsupervised learning and supervised learning amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As such, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
receive time-series data of each of a plurality of metrics;
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The limitations:
present the subset of the data instances and the assigned incident type labels to an operator;
are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
The claim further recites:
train, using unsupervised learning, a first system based on the data instances to generate anomaly values
automatically assign incident type labels to a subset of the data instances based on the anomaly values and on incident classification models;
train one or more classification systems using supervised learning based on only those values of the subset of the data instances which are associated with metrics of the determined sets of the plurality of metrics and the operator-confirmed incident type labels.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
The memory and processing unit are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of unsupervised learning and supervised learning amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 2,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
label the generated data instances which are not in the subset of the data instances with a NULL incident type label,
wherein the one or more classification systems are trained based on the generated data instances which are not in the subset of the data instances and labeled with a NULL incident type.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Determining labels is a mental processes and said labels are produced based on the humans knowledge and understanding. Humans have been determining labels before computers where ever invented.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Further the claim does not include additional elements that integrate this abstract idea into a practical application. “Determining” is performed using generic computer components performing their typical functions and does not provide a meaningful technological improvement.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Nothing in the claim adds “significantly more” beyond generic computing.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 3,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim does not recite an abstract idea or any other judicial exception and therefore passes Step 2A, Prong of the Alice/Mayo analysis.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein automatic assignment of the incident type labels comprises input the anomaly values for each metric value of each data instance of the subset to each incident classification model.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The limitations:
wherein automatic assignment of the incident type labels comprises input the anomaly values for each metric value of each data instance of the subset to each incident classification model.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
As to claim 6,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim does not recite an abstract idea or any other judicial exception and therefore passes Step 2A, Prong of the Alice/Mayo analysis.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein training the one or more classification systems comprises:
training a first classification system using supervised learning based on only values of the subset of the data instances of one or more metrics correlated with a first incident type;
training a second classification system using supervised learning based on only
values of the subset of the data instances of one or more metrics correlated with a second incident type.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The limitations:
wherein training the one or more classification systems comprises:
training a first classification system using supervised learning based on only values of the subset of the data instances of one or more metrics correlated with a first incident type;
training a second classification system using supervised learning based on only values of the subset of the data instances of one or more metrics correlated with a second incident type.
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Claim 7 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 8 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 9 has similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 12 has similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 13 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons.
The computer-readable medium and computing system are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 14 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15 has similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 18 has similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The newly added limitations overcome the 112 Rejection and the 112 Rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The newly added limitations overcome the 103 Rejection and the 103 Rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The 101 Rejection still has not been overcome. The claims are abstract and the steps in the claims can be completed with a mental process and/or generic computer components. Additionally, the steps in the claims do not describe an improvement of technology in any way.
The applicant argues:
The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter, "the January 2019 Guidance") and the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (hereinafter, "the October 2019 Update") govern the evaluation of patentable subject matter by the USPTO Examining Corps. According to the January 2019 Guidance, Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test consists of a two-pronged inquiry. At Prong One, the Examiner is to evaluate whether a claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the January 2019 Guidance, a law of nature or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis at Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception, the claim is deemed eligible at Prong One.
"To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance." January 2019 Guidance, page 17, lines 3-8. The enumerated subject matter groupings of abstract ideas consist solely of Mathematical Concepts, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and Mental Processes.
Prong One of Step 2A
Under Prong One of Step 2A, the Examiner alleges the following claim limitations recite an abstract idea under the Mental Processes grouping:
"generate data instances from the time-series data, each data instance including a value of each of the plurality of metrics and associated with a respective time period;
determine an operator-confirmed incident type label for each presented data instance based on input received from the operator;"
January 12, 2026 Office Action, page 4, lines 11-15.
The examiner disagrees. The applicant just recites general MPEP guidance regarding Step 2A, Prong One, but does not connect that guidance to the actual claim limitations identified in the rejection. Simply restating the legal standard, without explaining why the specific limitations do not fall within the identified abstract idea is not a substantial argument. Because the applicant does not meaningfully address the Examiner’s rejection or explain how the claimed limitations differ from the identified abstract idea, no persuasive argument has been presented, and the rejection is maintained.
The applicant argues:
Prong Two of Step 2A
At Prong Two of Step 2A, the Examiner is required to evaluate whether claim limitations that do not recite the judicial exception integrate the exception into a practical application. If so, then the claim is to be deemed eligible at Prong Two. According to M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d), the evaluation at Prong Two of Step 2A may consider factors such as:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in M.P.E.P. 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(e).
In the present amended independent claims, the "additional limitations" are:
"receiving time-series data of each of a plurality of metrics;
training, using unsupervised learning, a first system based on the data instances to generate anomaly values;
automatically assigning incident type labels to a subset of the data instances based on the anomaly values and on incident classification models;
presenting the subset of the data instances and the assigned incident type labels to an operator;
determining, for each of a plurality of incident types, a set of the plurality of metrics To which the incident type is correlated based on the incident type labels assigned to the subset of the data instances, where the determined sets of the plurality of metrics include less than all of the plurality of metrics; and
training one or more classification systems using supervised learning based on only those values of the subset of the data instances which are associated with metrics of the determined sets of the plurality of metrics and the operator-confirmed incident type labels"
The Office Action alleges that the as-filed additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they recite "insignificant extra-solution activity", amount "to no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception", are "mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, "merely uses computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and do "not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea".
Applicant submits that the above-listed additional limitations cannot be considered "insignificant extra-solution activity". Rather, the additional limitations describe core features described in the present application. Moreover, since the alleged abstract idea is simply "generate data instances from the time-series data and "determine an operator-confirmed incident type label...", then the specific and detailed "additional limitations" cannot be seen as adding the words "apply it", mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or failing to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The examiner disagrees. The applicant just recites general MPEP guidance regarding Step 2A, Prong Two, but does not reasonable explain how the recited limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Simply identifying additional claim limitations and saying they are “core features” of the application does not demonstrate eligibility. The recited limitations such as receiving data, generating anomaly values using machine learning, assigning labels, presenting information to an operator determining correlations, and training classification systems just amount to implementing the identified abstract idea using a generic computer and general analysis. The applicant stating that the limitations are not “insignificant extra solution activity” does no explain how the claims improve computer functionality.
Further, the applicant does not substantially address the examiner’s rejection or demonstrate integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, persuasive argument has been presented, and the rejection is maintained.
The applicant argues:
The Office Action is silent as to the "improvements" inquiry of Prong Two. The importance of this inquiry has been the subject of two recent documents issued by USPTO management. Applicant refers the Examiner to the precedential September 26, 2025 Decision on Request for Rehearing in U.S. Patent Application No. 16/319,040, authored by USPTO Director Squires. In vacating the panel's rejection under Section 101, the Decision notes" under the panel's reasoning, many AI innovations are potentially unpatentable-even if they are adequately described and nonobvious-because the panel essentially equated any machine learning with an unpatentable "algorithm" and the remaining additional elements as "generic computer components," without adequate explanation. Examiners and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality."
Applicant further directs the Examiner to the August 4, 2025 letter from Deputy Commissioner Charles Kim to Technology Centers 2100, 2600 and 3600. As noted in the letter, "[e]xaminers are cautioned not to oversimplify claim limitations and expand the application of the "apply it" consideration. Moreover, examiners are reminded that the "apply it" consideration often overlaps with the improvements consideration. When evaluating these two considerations, examiners may consider the following: 2. Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, or whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology." August 2, 2025 letter, page 4, lines 24-33.
The examiner disagrees. The applicant just recites general MPEP guidance regarding Step 2A, Prong Two but does not explain how the claimed limitations specifically improve computer functionality. Simply referencing eligibility guidance does not identify examining error.
The examiner’s rejection is based on the actual claim language, which recites use of generic computing components to perform the abstract process, not a technological improvement. The applicant’s arguments amount to disagreement with the rejections conclusion rather than a showing of an error.
The applicant argues:
Again, the January 12, 2026 Office Action is completely silent as to the "whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology." As noted in the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility,
"MPEP 2106.04(a) and 2106.05(a) provide a detailed explanation of how to perform this analysis. In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel") (emphasis added)."
Referring to the language quoted above, Applicant submits that the as-filed specification "provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement" in technology. For example, the as-filed Specification indicates "[b]y reducing the number of input metrics, the inference speed of the one or more classification systems, and of the training, is increased. Reducing the number of input metrics may also reduce memory consumption and computing cost". Specification, para. [0056].
Additionally, the claims include the components or steps that provide the improvements described in the specification. In this regard, the following claim limitations reduce the number of metrics input to the one or more classification systems:
determining, for each of a plurality of incident types, a set of the plurality of metrics to which the incident type is correlated based on the incident type labels assigned to the subset of the data instances, where the determined sets of the plurality of metrics include less than all of the plurality of metrics; and
training one or more classification systems using supervised learning based on only those values of the subset of the data instances which are associated with metrics of the determined sets of the plurality of metrics and the operator-confirmed incident type labels.
Accordingly, even if the limitations of the present claims could be seen to recite a judicial exception under Prong One of Step 2A, which is not conceded, the present claims clearly integrate the exception into a practical application under Prong Two of Step 2A and are therefore patent-eligible. Withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection is respectfully requested.
The examiner disagrees. The applicant pointing to general USPTO guidance and policy statements does not show error in the rejection. Applicant states the claims were oversimplified, but does not actually point to any claim limitation that improves the functioning of a computer. As claimed, the computer is just being used as a tool to carry out the abstract process. The applicant’s arguments amount to disagreement with the rejections conclusion rather than a showing of an error.
Conclusion
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 BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's Off).
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, Omar Fernandez can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights