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 .
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 1,2,4,8,9,11,15,16,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind.
Regarding claim 1, the claims is directed to mental processes.
The limitations ‘determining a correlation between asset information of the plurality of endpoints, characteristics of the plurality of data traces, and historical system environment changes in the computing system’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘storing the plurality of operating system event logs in the server that is connected to the plurality of endpoints over the computer network; generating, using the server, a machine learning model based at least on the correlation; generating, using the server and by at least applying the machine learning model to a current system environment change, a prediction of a potential failure in at least one of the plurality of endpoints’ device’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘obtaining, by a server from a plurality of endpoints and over a computer network, a plurality of operating system event logs for the plurality of endpoints, wherein the plurality of operating system event logs describe a plurality of software application events, a plurality of security events, a plurality of enterprise-focused events, and a plurality of system events, and wherein the plurality of system events describe a plurality of system crashes that occurred in the plurality of endpoints and a plurality of software programs that causes the plurality of system crashes; and’ are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘updating, by the server in response to the prediction of the potential failure a system environment to the potential failure using a software patch, wherein the software patch is a proactive action to prevent the potential failure’ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to
the industry, specified at a high-level of generality to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
USPN 20040073903A1 – paragraph 0007 - Second, in recent years, many
software manufacturers have begun releasing updates to their software more frequently
in order to keep the software's functionality up-to-date and to quickly fix known bugs in
the software.
USPN 5896566A – column 5, lines 22-24 - The updated software can serve
to fix known software bugs or the updated software could include new and/or improved
features.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘wherein the system environment is updated prior to a scheduled deployment of the current system environment change’ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high-level of generality to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
USPN 20030046026A1 – paragraph 0004 - Successful failure prediction allows necessary downtime to be scheduled, thereby to minimize disruption to the system user. 100% failure prediction is not possible, but if a significant percentage can be predicted early enough then a significant difference can be made.
USPN 20090228409A1 – paragraph 0002 - In this regard, the prediction of a fault in advance of its occurrence is useful since the prediction of a fault, particularly well prior to its occurrence, increases the likelihood that maintenance activities can be scheduled at convenient times and can avoid the actual occurrence of the fault which could take the equipment out of service for some period of time and may, in some instances, cause secondary damage to other parts.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations ‘wherein the plurality of characteristics comprises a type and a timestamp of each of the plurality of operating system event logs, wherein the asset information comprises a machine name, a user network identifier (id), and an IP Address of each of the plurality of operating system event logs, and wherein the plurality of historical system environment changes comprise an operating system (OS) upgrade, an antivirus update, a driver update, and a security policy change that occurred prior to determining the correlation’ - are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and ‘wherein the machine learning model is generated based on a machine learning training dataset comprising the asset information, the plurality of characteristics, and the plurality of historical system environment changes’ - directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations ‘further comprising: identifying, prior to the scheduled deployment, the current system environment change comprising one or more of an operating system (OS) upgrade, an antivirus update, a driver update, and a security policy change’ - mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 8, with the exception of the limitations ‘a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor and storing instruction, the instructions, when executed by the processor’, the claim is directed to mental processes.
The limitations ‘determining a correlation between asset information of the plurality of endpoints, characteristics of the plurality of data traces, and historical system environment changes in the computing system’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor and storing instruction, the instructions, when executed by the processor; storing the plurality of operating system event logs in the server that is connected to the plurality of endpoints over the computer network; generating, using the server, a machine learning model based at least on the correlation; generating, using the server and by at least applying the machine learning model to a current system environment change, a prediction of a potential failure in at least one of the plurality of endpoints’ device’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘obtaining, by a server from a plurality of endpoints and over a computer network, a plurality of operating system event logs for the plurality of endpoints, wherein the plurality of operating system event logs describe a plurality of software application events, a plurality of security events, a plurality of enterprise-focused events, and a plurality of system events, and wherein the plurality of system events describe a plurality of system crashes that occurred in the plurality of endpoints and a plurality of software programs that causes the plurality of system crashes; and’ are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘updating, by the server in response to the prediction of the potential failure a system environment to the potential failure using a software patch, wherein the software patch is a proactive action to prevent the potential failure’ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to
the industry, specified at a high-level of generality to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
USPN 20040073903A1 – paragraph 0007 - Second, in recent years, many
software manufacturers have begun releasing updates to their software more frequently
in order to keep the software's functionality up-to-date and to quickly fix known bugs in
the software.
USPN 5896566A – column 5, lines 22-24 - The updated software can serve
to fix known software bugs or the updated software could include new and/or improved
features.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘wherein the system environment is updated prior to a scheduled deployment of the current system environment change’ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high-level of generality to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
USPN 20030046026A1 – paragraph 0004 - Successful failure prediction allows necessary downtime to be scheduled, thereby to minimize disruption to the system user. 100% failure prediction is not possible, but if a significant percentage can be predicted early enough then a significant difference can be made.
USPN 20090228409A1 – paragraph 0002 - In this regard, the prediction of a fault in advance of its occurrence is useful since the prediction of a fault, particularly well prior to its occurrence, increases the likelihood that maintenance activities can be scheduled at convenient times and can avoid the actual occurrence of the fault which could take the equipment out of service for some period of time and may, in some instances, cause secondary damage to other parts.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations ‘wherein the plurality of characteristics comprises a type and a timestamp of each of the plurality of operating system event logs, wherein the asset information comprises a machine name, a user network identifier (id), and an IP Address of each of the plurality of operating system event logs, and wherein the plurality of historical system environment changes comprise an operating system (OS) upgrade, an antivirus update, a driver update, and a security policy change that occurred prior to determining the correlation’ - are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and ‘wherein the machine learning model is generated based on a machine learning training dataset comprising the asset information, the plurality of characteristics, and the plurality of historical system environment changes’ - directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 11, the limitations ‘identifying, prior to the scheduled deployment, the current system environment change comprising one or more of an operating system (OS) upgrade, an antivirus update, a driver update, and a security policy change’ - are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 15, with the exception of the limitations ‘a server connected to the plurality of endpoints over a computer network, wherein the server is configured to perform a method’, the claim is directed to mental processes.
The limitations ‘determining a correlation between asset information of the plurality of endpoints, characteristics of the plurality of data traces, and historical system environment changes in the computing system’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘a server connected to the plurality of endpoints over a computer network, wherein the server is configured to perform a method; storing the plurality of operating system event logs in the server that is connected to the plurality of endpoints over the computer network; generating, using the server, a machine learning model based at least on the correlation; generating, using the server and by at least applying the machine learning model to a current system environment change, a prediction of a potential failure in at least one of the plurality of endpoints’ device’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘obtaining, by a server from a plurality of endpoints and over a computer network, a plurality of operating system event logs for the plurality of endpoints, wherein the plurality of operating system event logs describe a plurality of software application events, a plurality of security events, a plurality of enterprise-focused events, and a plurality of system events, and wherein the plurality of system events describe a plurality of system crashes that occurred in the plurality of endpoints and a plurality of software programs that causes the plurality of system crashes’ are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘updating, by the server in response to the prediction of the potential failure a system environment to the potential failure using a software patch, wherein the software patch is a proactive action to prevent the potential failure’ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to
the industry, specified at a high-level of generality to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
USPN 20040073903A1 – paragraph 0007 - Second, in recent years, many
software manufacturers have begun releasing updates to their software more frequently
in order to keep the software's functionality up-to-date and to quickly fix known bugs in
the software.
USPN 5896566A – column 5, lines 22-24 - The updated software can serve
to fix known software bugs or the updated software could include new and/or improved
features.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘wherein the system environment is updated prior to a scheduled deployment of the current system environment change’ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high-level of generality to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
USPN 20030046026A1 – paragraph 0004 - Successful failure prediction allows necessary downtime to be scheduled, thereby to minimize disruption to the system user. 100% failure prediction is not possible, but if a significant percentage can be predicted early enough then a significant difference can be made.
USPN 20090228409A1 – paragraph 0002 - In this regard, the prediction of a fault in advance of its occurrence is useful since the prediction of a fault, particularly well prior to its occurrence, increases the likelihood that maintenance activities can be scheduled at convenient times and can avoid the actual occurrence of the fault which could take the equipment out of service for some period of time and may, in some instances, cause secondary damage to other parts.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations ‘wherein the plurality of characteristics comprises a type and a timestamp of each of the plurality of operating system event logs, wherein the asset information comprises a machine name, a user network identifier (id), and an IP Address of each of the plurality of operating system event logs, and wherein the plurality of historical system environment changes comprise an operating system (OS) upgrade, an antivirus update, a driver update, and a security policy change that occurred prior to determining the correlation’ - are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, and ‘wherein the machine learning model is generated based on a machine learning training dataset comprising the asset information, the plurality of characteristics, and the plurality of historical system environment changes’ - are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 18, the limitations ‘identifying, prior to the scheduled deployment, the current system environment change comprising one or more of an operating system (OS) upgrade, an antivirus update, a driver update, and a security policy change in the computing system’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Concerning Applicant’s arguments to the 35 USC 101 rejection, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea. An improvement to technology is not seen. The software updating is considered well-understood, routine, conventional as well as the updating is scheduled is considered well-understood, routine, conventional. The arguments concerning Kollective Tech have been considered, however the arguments are not persuasive because the claims are still viewed as being an abstract idea. Please see the above rejection.
The prior art rejection has been withdrawn because of the addition of the newly added limitations.
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 Yolanda L Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-3653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30 am - 4 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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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.
/Yolanda L Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113