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 .
Status of the Application
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are currently amended.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are canceled.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are currently pending following this response.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on pages 11-14
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims can recite an abstract idea even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer’).
Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in a memory in Content Extraction is according to the court an abstract idea that is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts. Present claim 1 is collecting and analyzing data using a generic computer processor. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude based on the similarity of the idea described in this claim to several abstract ideas found by the courts that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the mental process abstract idea recited in the claims are moot in view of the present 35 USC § 101 rejection where the Examiner identified the abstract ideas recited in the claims as organizing human activities because the present claims extracting notes incident data, determining that incident data is related to a migration incident based on a calculated degree of proximity, and outputting the migration note to a user to address the system failure of a computing system.
Further, the additional elements in the present claims as amended “computer-implemented”, “by at least one processor”, “using a trained noise model”, and “wherein the trained noise model is configured to”) do not improve any existing technology. Applicant’s arguments on page 14-15 about the technical improvement is not clear in the present claims. The present claims details search for migration notes and outputting relevant migration notes to a user to resolve the migration issue. The Examiner submits that the claimed steps are performed by applying a combination of old machine learning elements. The claimed “the instant claims recite a technological solution that can more effectively calculate a degree of proximity between the incident data and labeled incident data” argument (page 15) is not persuasive because such effectiveness in calculating proximity is actually a business improvement and not a technical improvement.
As a result, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, Step 2A Prong Two.
Finally, because the Examiner has determined that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, the Examiner proceeds to Step 2B of the Eligibility Guidelines, which asks whether there is an inventive concept. In making this Step 2B determination, the Examiner must consider whether there are specific limitations or elements recited in the claim “that are not well - understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present” or whether the claim “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56 (footnote omitted). The Examiner must also consider whether the combination of steps perform “in an unconventional way and therefore include an ‘inventive step,’ rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B” Id. In this part of the analysis, the Examiner considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine “whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. As discussed above, there is no evidence in the record that the steps of extracting notes incident data, determining that the incident data is related to a migration incident based on a calculated degree of proximity, and outputting the migration note are accomplished in a non-conventional way. The Examiner therefore concludes that the claims used generic, conventional, technology to implement the abstract idea of extracting notes incident data, determining that the incident data is related to a migration incident based on a calculated degree of proximity, and outputting the migration note and that there is no improvement to an “existing technology.”
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “A computer-implemented method for performing a system migration in a computing system receiving” it should read “A computer-implemented method for performing a system migration in a computing system, the method comprising: receiving” and Claim 1 recites “wherein the resolving comprises causing the execution of the one or more actions towards the system failure the computing system” it should read “wherein the resolving comprises causing the execution of the one or more actions to address the system failure of the computing system”.
Claims 2-3 and 5-7 depend from claim 1 and do not cure the noted deficiency. Therefore, they are also objected to by the Examiner.
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, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 11-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of extracting notes incident data, determining that incident data is related to a migration incident based on a calculated degree of proximity, and outputting the migration note to address the system failure of a computing system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “A method for performing a system migration in a computing system receiving a note from the computing system, wherein the received note fails to provide a solution for a migration incident, and wherein the migration incident occurs during the system migration; extracting incident data associated with the received note, wherein the incident data comprises a data object of the migration incident; converting the data object of the migration incident into a description of the migration incident, wherein the converting further comprises: concatenating a title field of the data object and a detailed description field of the data object into a concatenated description; recognizing at least one word within the concatenated description as noise based on a similarity between the at least one word and labeled noise data, remove noise from the incident data using the labeled noise data, and wherein the labeled noise data comprises text unrelated to the migration incident from prior received notes; removing the at least one word from the concatenated description, thereby creating a filtered description of the incident data; tokenizing the filtered description into a set of tokens; and storing the set of tokens in the description of the migration incident; calculating, based on the description of the migration incident, a degree of proximity between the incident data and labeled-incident data based on a derived average distance between the labeled-incident data and a number of neighbor-labeled data identified as migration data, wherein the labeled-incident data indicates whether the incident data is related to the migration incident of the computing system undergoing the migration; determining that the incident data is related to the migration incident based on the calculated degree of proximity; based on the determining that the incident data is related to the migration incident, extracting, from a plurality of notes previously received from the computing system and using a mapping identifier of the data object, a migration note associated with the migration incident, wherein the migration note comprises one or more actions to be taken towards a system failure experienced by the computing system; determining, by applying relevancy criteria to the migration note, that the one or more actions of the migration note provides the solution for the migration incident of the computing system; and continuing the system migration of the computer system by resolving the migration incident for the migration, wherein the resolving comprises causing the execution of the one or more actions towards the system failure the computing system.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for determining that incident data is related to a migration incident based on a calculated degree of proximity, and outputting the migration note to address the system failure of a computing system. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 8 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20 recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for determining that incident data is related to a migration incident based on a calculated degree of proximity, and outputting the migration note to address the system failure of a computing system. As a result, claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “computer-implemented”, “by at least one processor”, “using a trained noise model”, and “wherein the trained noise model is configured to”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the step of “receiving” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “receiving” is an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 8 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 8 further recites “A system for discovering a migration note, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory” and claim 15 further recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium”, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 8 and 15 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 8, and 15. As a result, claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “computer-implemented”, “by at least one processor”, “from the computing system” and “by outputting the migration note to the computing system”. The step of “receiving” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because “receiving” is well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 8 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 8 further recites “A system for discovering a migration note, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory” and claim 15 further recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 8 and 15 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 8, and 15. As a result, claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-3734.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (in US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623