DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-4, 7-11, 14-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite obtaining performance metrics, cleansing performance metric, evaluating performance metrics against train data based on historical data, determining component failures probabilities exceed a threshold and determining and initiating a remedial action. These limitations describe collecting data, analyzing data and evaluating data which fall under the mental process and or mathematical concepts grouping. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation this covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Metal Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements including a processor, memory, network interface and ML model are described at a high level of generality and perform their well known and typical functions of receiving, storing and processing data. The elements provide a technological environment for obtaining and processing the information. The step of executing remedial action applies to the result of the abstract analysis and represents an insignificant post solution activity that does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The claims do not recite a specific improvement to the computer or technology. Instead, the additional elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer components to perform the data analysis. The newly added limitation of cleansing, historical training data and cascading failure correlation further define the data but to not recite a specific improvement to the operation of the computer or network itself. Therefor the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements the computer and network components merely perform their ordinary function of obtaining, processing data and are recited at a high level of generality merely provide the technological environment in which the abstract analysis is performed. The elements individually or in combination fail to meaningfully limit the judicial exception and does not amount to significantly more than the exception.
Claims 2-4, 7-11 and 14-24 are rejected under the same reasons as their respective independent claims and dependent claims, as the claims further define the collection, preparation and analysis of the data using training and historical datasets to predict component failures. The additional limitations do not recite a particular technological improvement to the computer system or otherwise integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they provide additional element that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 23 and 24 claim specific actions taken after and based upon the result of the failure analysis without reciting a particular technological manner in which the shutdown or replacement is performed or an improvement in the operation of the computer itself. The limitations amount to a post solution activity that does not meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states:
On page 2 of the Office Action, the Examiner concludes that the claims recite "obtaining performance metrics, generating component failure probabilities, determining component failures probabilities exceed a threshold and determining and initiating a remedial action" and that these features describe "collecting data, analyzing data and evaluating data," which "fall within the 'Metal Processes' [sic.] grouping of abstract ideas."
Additionally, on page 3 of the Office Action, the Examiner further concludes that the "executing of [a] remedial action . . . represents an insignificant post solution activity that does not integrate [an] abstract idea into a practical application." However, Applicant respectfully disagrees with this conclusion because the subject matter claimed improves the functioning of a computer system by proactively mitigating its components' failure and, thereby, improving the computer system's integrity. See, e.g., paragraphs [0002], [0004]-[0006] and [0038] of the Specification.
Accordingly, since the claimed subject matter is explicitly directed to the improving of the functioning of a computer system, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter because such improvement(s) effectively integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application of such idea. See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the claimed subject matter improves the functioning of the computer system by proactively mitigating component failure and thereby improving the system’s integrity. The claims do not recite a particular technological manner in which the operation of the computer system is improved. The claims do recite collecting performance metrics, generating component failure probabilities, analyzing the probability against a threshold, determining remedial action and mitigating the failure by initiating a remedial action. The claim does not specify what remedial action is performed or how the action modifies operation of the computer system. The claim merely invokes an unspecified action based on the abstract analysis rather than a particular technological solution that improves the computer system functionality.
Examiner agrees with applicant regarding the 102 rejection. The 102 rejection has been withdrawn.
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 CHARLES EHNE whose telephone number is (571)272-2471. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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.
/CHARLES EHNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights