DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
Applicant’s amendment and response dated 5/5/2026 has been provided in response to the 2/5/2026 Office Action which rejected claims 1-12 and 14-21, wherein claims 1, 7-9, 11, 16 and 19 have been amended, claims 5, 6, 13, and 18 have been cancelled, and new claims 22-24 have been added. Thus, claims 1-4, 7-12, 14-17, and 19-24 remain pending in this application and have been fully considered by the examiner.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection of record from the previous action is maintained and 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.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 5/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicants’ arguments regarding the rejection of claims under 35 USC
101, the Applicants should please see the rejection below for clarification as it will substantially duplicate any response to the arguments in this section. However, the Applicant should please note that the limitations of the claim, even when taken as an ordered combination, do not provide steps that confine the abstract idea to a particular useful application. The additional element of “ tailor recommendation of software updates to a first network element” merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Also, the newly added limitations of “parsing configuration data obtained for the first network element to extract a subset of the configuration data based on indications of a plurality of features affected by a plurality of software updates, wherein the subset of configuration data indicates a first subset of the plurality of features of the first network element to which one or more of the plurality of software updates are determined to be relevant” still recites insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In addition, the newly added limitations of “wherein the plurality of heuristics comprises heuristics for determining impact of installing a software update to a network element based on at least one of types of issues, severity of issues, and likelihood of issues associated with software updates, wherein analyzing the subset of configuration data and indications of impact of installing the software update based on the plurality of heuristics comprises, based on correlating the indications of the one or more issues with the one or more features enabled for the first network element based on the indications of the second subset of the plurality of features, determining at least a first issue of the one or more issues documented for the software update that potentially affects a corresponding one of the one or more features enabled for the first network element, and analyzing the first issue that potentially affects the corresponding one of the one or more features based on the plurality of heuristics and at least one of a type of the first issue, a severity of the first issue, and a likelihood of the first issue”, all recite additional “mental processes”. Therefore, the recited judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application, and the claims remain ineligible.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 7, 8, 16, 17, 19 , and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 at line 7, wherein the at least the first issue should be --wherein
Claim 16:
at lines 18-19 “determine one or more configuration settings of the first subset of configuration settings the first network element” should be --determine one or more configuration settings of the first subset of configuration settings of the first network element--. at line 50 “the one or more enabled features” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 19 has a similar issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 17 and 20 do not overcome the deficiency of the base claims and, therefore, are objected for the same reasons as the base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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, 7-12, 14-17, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis specific to Claim 16 is being presented below. However, the Applicants should please note that the analysis for claim 16 is similar to that of claims 1 and 11 and therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Amended Claim 16 recites:
(a) An apparatus comprising:
(b) a processor; and
(c) a machine-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to tailor recommendation of software updates to a first network element, wherein the instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to tailor recommendation of software updates to the first network element comprise instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to,
(d) parse configuration data obtained for the first network element to extract a subset of the configuration data based on indications of a plurality of configuration settings affected by a plurality of software updates, wherein the subset of the configuration data indicates a first subset of the plurality of configuration settings of the first network element to which one or more of the plurality of software updates are determined to be relevant;
(e) determine one or more configuration settings of the first subset of configuration settings of the first network element that are enabled based on the subset of the configuration data;
(f) determine a set of the plurality of software updates that is available for the first network element based on the subset of the configuration data;
(g) analyze the subset of the configuration data and at least one of data and metadata of the set of software updates based on a plurality of heuristics to determine impact of installing each software update in the set of software updates to the first network element on performance or operation of the first network element based on the one or more enabled configuration settings of the first network element,
(h) wherein the plurality of heuristics comprises heuristics for determining impact of installing a software update to a network element based on at least one of types of issues, severity of issues, and likelihood of issues,
(i) wherein the at least one of data and metadata of the set of software updates comprise, for each software update in the set of software updates, indications of one or more of the plurality of configuration settings and indications of one or more issues documented for the software update that are inferred to affect corresponding ones of the one or more configuration settings,
(j) wherein the instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to analyze the subset of the configuration data and the at least one of data and metadata of the set of software updates based on the plurality of heuristics comprise instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to, for each software update in the set of software updates,
(k) based on correlation of the indications of the one or more issues with the one or more enabled configuration settings of the first network element, determine at least a first issue of the one or more issues that potentially affects a corresponding one of the one or more enabled features; and
(l) analyze the first issue based on the plurality of heuristics and at least one of type of the first issue, severity of the first issue, and likelihood of the first issue;
(m) determine one or more software updates of the set of software updates to recommend based on a result of the analysis; and
(n) indicate the one or more software updates and corresponding ones of the at least one of data and metadata of the set of software updates;
Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claim recites the limitations of:
(e) determine one or more configuration settings of the first subset of configuration settings of the first network element that are enabled based on the subset of the configuration data;
(f) determine a set of the plurality of software updates that is available for the first network element based on the subset of the configuration data;
(g) analyze the subset of the configuration data and at least one of data and metadata of the set of software updates based on a plurality of heuristics to determine impact of installing each software update in the set of software updates to the first network element on performance or operation of the first network element based on the one or more enabled configuration settings of the first network element,
(h) wherein the plurality of heuristics comprises heuristics for determining impact of installing a software update to a network element based on at least one of types of issues, severity of issues, and likelihood of issues,
(i) wherein the at least one of data and metadata of the set of software updates comprise, for each software update in the set of software updates, indications of one or more of the plurality of configuration settings and indications of one or more issues documented for the software update that are inferred to affect corresponding ones of the one or more configuration settings,
(j) analyze the subset of the configuration data and the at least one of data and metadata of the set of software updates based on the plurality of heuristics comprise instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to, for each software update in the set of software updates,
(k) based on correlation of the indications of the one or more issues with the one or more enabled configuration settings of the first network element, determine at least a first issue of the one or more issues that potentially affects a corresponding one of the one or more enabled features; and
(l) analyze the first issue based on the plurality of heuristics and at least one of type of the first issue, severity of the first issue, and likelihood of the first issue;
(m) determine one or more software updates of the set of software updates to recommend based on a result of the analysis; and
(n) indicate the one or more software updates and corresponding ones of the at least one of data and metadata of the set of software updates;
Limitations (e)-(n) are limitations that, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “determine”, “analyze”, “correlate”, and “indicate” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A – Prong 2:
The claim recites the additional elements recited in limitations of (a)-(c), “wherein the instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to” and “a first network element”, which are all recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Also, the additional element recited in limitation (d) merely recites insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). In addition, the additional element of “ tailor recommendation of software updates to a first network element” merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements as recited in limitations of (a)-(c), “wherein the instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to” and “a first network element” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of “ tailor recommendation of software updates to a first network element” merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In addition, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, as recited in the limitation of (d) and thus this limitation also does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., simply adding extra-solution activity or generic computer components does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept and the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Additionally, claim 2 recites generating the indications of the plurality of features based on published documentation associated with each of the plurality of software updates, which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, as discussed above. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 3 recites “wherein generating the indications of the plurality of features comprises, for each software update of the plurality of software updates, determining one or more features affected by the software update based on at least one of the published documentation and indications of a plurality of issues, wherein the one or more features affected by the software update comprise at least one of one or more features associated with a change in behavior documented in the published documentation and one or more features potentially affected by corresponding ones of the plurality of issues, wherein the plurality of issues includes the one or more issues; and determining, for each feature of the one or more features, a configuration data field that corresponds to the feature”, which all also fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, as discussed above. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 4 recites wherein determining the one or more features comprises analyzing descriptions of features in the published documentation and descriptions of the plurality of issues with natural language processing to determine similarities between the descriptions of the features and the descriptions of the plurality of issues and determining that a first feature of the one or more features is potentially affected by a first issue of the plurality of issues based on a determined similarity between a description of the first feature and a description of the first issue, which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 7 recites wherein the indications of the one or more issues comprise an indication of a first software bug associated with the software update that potentially affects a first feature of the one or more features for the first network element, wherein determining at least the first issue that potentially affects the corresponding one of the one or more features comprises determining based on the one or more features that the first feature is enabled for the first network element, wherein the at least the first issue documented for the first software update that potentially affects a corresponding one of the one or more features comprise the first software bug, which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 8 recites scoring each of the set of software updates based on analyzing the subset of configuration data and the indications of impact based on the plurality of heuristics, wherein scoring each of the plurality of software updates comprises, for each software update of the set of software updates, determining a score indicating impact of installing the software update based on the at least the first issue, wherein the result of analyzing the subset of configuration data and the indications of impact based on the plurality of heuristics comprises scores determined for the set of software updates, wherein selecting the one or more software updates for the set of software updates is based on the scores determined for the set of software updates, which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 9 recites wherein the one or more issues documented for each software update in the set of software updates comprise at least one of one or more software bugs that potentially affect the software update, one or more vulnerabilities, and one or more issues reported in customer support tickets, which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 10 recites determining, for at least a first software update of the set of software updates, one or more issues that would be avoided based on installation of the first software update, wherein the recommendation also indicates the one or more issues that would be avoided, which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 12 recites wherein the program code further comprises instructions to generate the at least one of the data and metadata of the set of software updates based on documentation published for each of the set of software updates, which merely recites insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 14 recites wherein the indications of the plurality of issues comprise an indication of a first software bug that potentially affects a first feature, wherein the instructions to determine the one or more of the subset of enabled features that are potentially affected by corresponding ones of the plurality of issues comprise instructions to determine based on the plurality of enabled features that the first feature is enabled for the first network element, which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 15 recites wherein the program code further comprises instructions to determine, for each software update in the set of software updates, a score indicating impact of installing the software update based on analysis of corresponding ones of the at least one of the data and metadata and the subset of configuration data, wherein the instructions to select the one or more software updates to recommend based on the result of the analysis comprise instructions to select the one or more software updates based on scores determined for the set of software updates, which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas with additional elements which are all recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 17 recites instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to generate the indications of the plurality of configuration settings affected by the plurality of software updates based on published documentation of the plurality of software updates, wherein the instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to generate the indications of the plurality of configuration settings comprise instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to, determine one or more features affected by the plurality of software updates based on at least one of the published documentation and the indications of a plurality of issues documented for the plurality of software updates and determine, for each feature of the one or more features, a configuration data field that corresponds to the feature, which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas with additional elements which are all recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 19 recites wherein the indications of the one or more issues comprise an indication of a first software bug that potentially affects a first configuration setting of the first network element, wherein the instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to determine at least the first issue of the one or more issues that potentially affects a corresponding one of the one or more enabled features comprise instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to determine that the first configuration setting is enabled for the first network element based on the determined one or more enabled configuration settings of the first network element, which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas with additional elements which are all recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 20 recites the apparatus of claim 16 further comprising instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to score each of the set of software updates based on the analysis, wherein the instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to score each of the plurality of software updates comprise instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to, for each software update of the set of software updates, determine a score indicating impact of installing the software update on the first network element, wherein the instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to determine of the one or more software updates to recommend for the first network element based on the result of the analysis comprise the instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to determine the one or more software updates to recommend based on scores determined for the set of software updates., which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas with additional elements which are all recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 21 recites wherein the instructions to generate the at least one of the data and metadata of the set of software updates based on the documentation published for each of the set of software updates comprise instructions to, for each software update in the set of software updates and corresponding published documentation, which merely recites insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. “Determine one or more features affected by the software update based on at least one of the published documentation and indications of the plurality of issues, wherein the one or more features comprise at least one of one or more features associated with a change in behavior documented in the published documentation and one or more features potentially affected by corresponding ones of the plurality of issues” and “determine, for each feature of the one or more features, a configuration data field that corresponds to the feature”, all also fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. “The instructions” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally claim 22 recites streaming, by the first network element that has device telemetry enabled, telemetry data to a parser, wherein the telemetry data comprises the configuration data of the first network element, wherein parsing the configuration data is by the parser, which is insignificant extra solution activity such as transmitting data, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and additional elements which are all recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally, claim 23 recites wherein analyzing descriptions of features in the published documentation and descriptions of the plurality of issues with natural language processing comprises, generating first embeddings of the descriptions of the features in the published documentation; generating second embeddings of the descriptions of the plurality of issues; and for each issue description of at least a subset of the descriptions of the plurality of issues, determining similarity of a corresponding one of the second embeddings with each of the first embeddings., which also falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Additionally claim 24 recites wherein the program code further comprises instructions to stream, by the first network element that has device telemetry enabled, telemetry data to a parser, wherein the telemetry data comprises the configuration data of the first network element, wherein parsing of the configuration data of the first network element is by the parser, which is insignificant extra solution activity such as transmitting data, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and additional elements which are all recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, this claim fails both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B and is ineligible.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENECA SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1651. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Hyung S Sough can be reached on 571-272-6799. 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.
/CHENECA SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. Sough/SPE, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights