DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
Applicant presents a communication dated 24 November 2025 in response to the 27 August 2025 non-final Office action (the “Previous Action”).
Claims 1, 14, 18 and 21 are amended.
Claims 1 and 3-21 are pending. Claims 1, 14 and 18 are the independent claims.
Any unpersuasive arguments are addressed in the “Response to Arguments” section below. Any new ground(s) of rejection were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the withdrawn rejections and new ground(s) of rejection below, necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 14 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action. However, the features of the claim that distinguish the claims from the prior art are also asserted to be new matter below. Thus, amending the claims to overcome the 112 rejections will likely affect their allowability.
Claim Objections
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification does not provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms “modeled disruptions” or “modeled failures.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Previous Action’s § 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s claim amendments.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 1, the claim recites to:
…input, into a machine learning model, the application model, wherein the machine learning model uses the application model to simulate actions taken by the application when experiencing disruptions or failures….
There does not appear to be sufficient support in the originally filed specification for these features.
Applicant points to original paragraphs [0036], [0086], [0091-0092], [0094] and [0126-0128] as support. Of these, paragraph [0126] comes the closest. But this paragraph does not refer to using any application model input into a machine learning model used to simulate actions taken by the application when experiencing disruptions or failures. It refers to a machine learning algorithm that “develop[ed]” by the machine learning algorithm, used to simulate actions taken by the application when experiencing different conditions. Similarly, paragraph [0070] refers to employing the machine learning algorithm to “build” a model of the application to simulate actions. Thus, these paragraphs describe a learning algorithm developing or building an application model to simulate actions, not a model “input” to a machine learning model as claimed. No portion of the originally filed specification appears to support what is claimed.
Further as to claim 1, the claim recites that:
…the machine learning model uses the application model to…identify points of failure…and predict one or more testing simulation scenarios…
There does not appear to be sufficient support in the originally filed specification for these features either.
Again, Applicant points to original paragraphs [0036], [0086], [0091-0092], [0094] and [0126-0128] as support. But again, none of these paragraphs appear to describe what is claimed. Paragraph [0086] refers to a model of the application and using the model to predict how the application would function but it does not describe predicting any scenario. Paragraph [0092] describes the machine learning system modeling the effects of chaos conditions and predicting if a chaos scenario would be useful but does not describe using any model of the application to do so. And paragraph [0128] refers the machine learning system identifying potential points of failure but does not refer to using any application model to do that either. No portion of the originally filed specification appears to support what is claimed.
As to claims 3-13 and 21, the claims are dependent on claim 1 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 14, the claim includes the same new matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
As to claims 15-17, the claims are dependent on claim 14 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 18, the claim includes the same new matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
As to claims 19-20, the claims are dependent on claim 18 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, US 2025/0053501 is cited because it is a continuation of the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD AGUILERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11AM - 7:30PM 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 at (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.
/TODD AGUILERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192