Final Rejection
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 .
Claims 4, 7, 9-10, 13-14, 17, and 19 have been cancelled by Applicant
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 11-12, 15-16, 18 and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 11-12, 15-16, 18, 20, 23-24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2)
Claims 21-22 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 11-12, 15-16, 18 and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite mental processes and mathematics. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims generally link abstract ideas to a generic computer and perform mere data gathering in relation to the mental processes. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they include mere instructions to perform mental processes on a generic computer.
The claimed invention is the use of human-created rules and processes in a computer. The solution to the problem (the details of the analysis of the self-healing workflow) is never specified, and it is merely stated that this workflow may be created by a human and stored into a generic computer for later use. The type of computer (technology stack) is also never specified – the invention is a generic solution for a generic computer, as further exemplified by the newly added claims. Many of the additional elements relate to gathering, storing, and outputting this human-created data. Furthermore, terms such as “virtual engineer” appear to indicate that the invention is intended to replace and automate a human process. The invention is directed to, “selecting information, based on types of information… for collection, analysis and display,” which is not considered to be a practical application according to MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 1
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
Claim 1 recites:
access an indication of an occurrence of an event, an alert, or a situation detected at a channel in relation to a computer resource (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations,” are mental processes; Paragraph 0001 of Applicant’s specification indicates an alert can be accessed by a security team),
evaluate the event, the alert, or the situation (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” are mental processes) against one or more user-defined conditions included in one or more automation rules (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” and identifying patterns are mental processes; Paragraph 0003 of Applicant’s specification states that these rules can be created by technology teams) …
determine that a user-defined condition from among the one or more user-defined conditions of an automation rule for triggering the self-healing automation has been satisfied based on the evaluation (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” and identifying patterns are mental processes);
select the automation rule, from among the evaluated one or more automation rules, based on the determination that the user-defined condition of the automation rule has been satisfied (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” and identifying patterns are mental processes), wherein the automation rule … in association with a workflow identifier that is mapped to the automation rule (a judgment of how to organize is considered a mental process with respect to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A));
identify a self-healing workflow based on the workflow identifier (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” and identifying patterns are mental processes);
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
Claim 1 recites:
a processor programmed to (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2), performing a mental process in a computer environment is still an abstract idea; MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer):
wherein the event, the alert, or the situation indicates an alert state of the computer resource (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity);
… that can each trigger a corresponding self-healing workflow (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer) the user-defined conditions having been stored in a machine-readable interchange format (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer; MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity);
wherein to evaluate the event, the alert, or the situation, the processor is programmed to parse the machine-readable interchange format and compare the event, the alert, or the situation against the one or more user-defined conditions (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2), performing a mental process in a computer environment is still an abstract idea; MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer);
… is stored (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “using a computer in its ordinary capacity … e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data … does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(ii), sending data to another location is considered insignificant extra-solution activity) …
and automatically execute the identified self-healing workflow, which triggers execution of an automation agent comprising computer-executable code that performs, on the computer resource, one or more computer remediation operations specified by the identified self-healing workflow to mitigate the alert state (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer; Paragraph 0003 of Applicant’s specification describes automation of human created processes).
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
The additional elements of the claim do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The claims simply state mental processes with mere instructions to perform these abstract ideas on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)(3)). The computer is cited at such a high level of generality that it cannot be determined to be a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)) and is simply linking the judicial exception to a particular technology (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim recites only the idea of a solution but fails to recite details as to how the solution to the problem is accomplished, because it leaves a majority of the analysis to the generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites:
receive (MPEP 2106.05(g), mere data gathering is considered insignificant extra-solution activity; MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “using a computer in its ordinary capacity … e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data … does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”), from a responsible party associated with the alert state (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), a human input is considered a mental process of a judgment), the one or more user-defined conditions to onboard the self-healing automation (user-defined conditions are considered mental processes in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), as, “evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” and identifying patterns are mental processes; MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity);
generate the automation rule based on the one or more user-defined conditions and map the automation rule to the self-healing workflow (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), as, “evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” and identifying patterns are mental processes, and these particular mental processes are based on human-created rules as cited above);
and store the mapped automation rule and self-healing workflow for automated retrieval and matching (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(ii), sending data to another location is considered insignificant extra-solution activity; MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “using a computer in its ordinary capacity … e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data … does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites:
before the self-healing workflow is associated with the alert state, transmit an indication of the alert state to the responsible party via an intelligent process automation portal (MPEP 2106.05(g), the display and output of data is considered insignificant extra-solution activity), wherein the automation rule and corresponding self-healing workflow are configured based on input from the responsible party to set up automated self-healing for the alert state (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), as, “evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” and identifying patterns are mental processes, and these particular mental processes are based on human-created rules as cited above).
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites:
access an indication of an occurrence of a second event, a second alert, or a second situation detected at the channel in relation to the computer resource, wherein the second event, the second alert, or the second situation indicates a second alert state of the computer resource (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations,” are mental processes; Paragraph 0001 of Applicant’s specification indicates an alert can be accessed by a security team);
determine that the second alert state has not been onboarded for self-healing automation (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” and identifying patterns are mental processes);
and transmit an indication for manual resolution by a second responsible party that is associated with the second alert state (MPEP 2106.05(g), the display and output of data is considered insignificant extra-solution activity; MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(v), “requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer,” is insignificant extra-solution activity).
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites:
receive (MPEP 2106.05(g), mere data gathering is considered insignificant extra-solution activity; MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “using a computer in its ordinary capacity … e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data … does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”), from the second responsible party associated with the second alert state (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), a human input is considered a mental process of a judgment), a specification of a second automation rule and corresponding second self-healing workflow (user-defined conditions are considered mental processes in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), as, “evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” and identifying patterns are mental processes; as seen above, Paragraph 0003 and the claim language describe these rules and workflows as being defined by humans; MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity);
and store the second automation rule and corresponding second self-healing workflow in a self-healing datastore (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(ii), sending data to another location is considered insignificant extra-solution activity; MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “using a computer in its ordinary capacity … e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data … does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”).
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites:
wherein the channel comprises an event management platform, the system further comprising: the event management platform, wherein the event management platform is programmed to (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer):
receive one or more events associated with a technology stack (MPEP 2106.05(g), mere data gathering is considered insignificant extra-solution activity), generate an alert based on the one or more events (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” and identifying patterns are mental processes), cluster the alert with at least one other alert to generate a situation (MPEP 2106.05(g), mere data gathering is considered insignificant extra-solution activity; determining which alerts to cluster together is seen as a mental judgment with respect to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)), and generate an automation request (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer) to request the self-heal automation responsive to the situation (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” and identifying patterns are mental processes).
Claim 11
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
All limitations identified as abstract ideas have been analyzed above with respect to Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
Claim 11 recites:
… by a/the processor (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2), performing a mental process in a computer environment is still an abstract idea; MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer) …
All additional limitations identified as additional elements have been analyzed above with respect to Claim 1.
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
Step 2B analysis regarding the limitations of Claim 11 can be seen above in relation to Claim 1.
Claims 12-13 and 15-19
All limitations of Claims 12, 15-16, and 18 have been addressed in the analyses of Claims 2, 5-6, and 8, respectively. Please see the above rejections for further details.
Claim 20
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
All limitations identified as abstract ideas have been analyzed above with respect to Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
Claim 20 recites:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, programs the processor to (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2), performing a mental process in a computer environment is still an abstract idea; MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer):
All additional limitations identified as additional elements have been analyzed above with respect to Claim 1.
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
Step 2B analysis regarding the limitations of Claim 20 can be seen above in relation to Claim 1.
Claim 21
Claim 21 recites:
wherein to initiate the self-healing workflow, the processor is programmed to, without user intervention (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer):
generate an automation request (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer);
transmit, via an automation application programming interface (API) gateway, the automation request to a task automation platform that is logically separate from the processor (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(ii), sending data to another location is considered insignificant extra-solution activity; MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “using a computer in its ordinary capacity … e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data … does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer);
and execute, by the task automation platform responsive to the automation request, one or more automation agents to perform the one or more remediation operations on the computer resource (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer).
Claim 22
Consulting and updating an activity log is considered insignificant extra solution activity, as explained in MPEP 2106.05(g), Mere Data Gathering (iii). Additionally, it is well-understood, routine, and conventional to associate an identifier with another identifier (such as queuing indexes for different items) and retrieve status updates according to such identifiers, as shown by:
Maatouk et al., "Timely Updates With Priorities: Lexicographic Age Optimality," in IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 3020-3033, May 2022
Zou et al., "Waiting Before Serving: A Companion to Packet Management in Status Update Systems," in IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 3864-3877, June 2020
Zheng et al., "Urgency of Information for Context-Aware Timely Status Updates in Remote Control Systems," in IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 7237-7250, Nov. 2020
The various data types relating to automations and self-healing workflows are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity).
Claim 23
Claim 23 recites:
a threshold value (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), mathematical relationships, formulas/equations, and calculations are abstract ideas) associated with a monitored system parameter comprising a computational load, a storage capacity, and/or a number of logon attempts (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity);
and a comparison operation configured to determine that the threshold value is exceeded based on the event, alert, or situation, wherein the automation rule is selected based on the threshold value (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), mathematical relationships, formulas/equations, and calculations are abstract ideas; MPEP 2106.04(a), math that could be practically performed in the human mind is considered a mental process; MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), judgments, particularly “collecting information, analyzing it…” and identifying patterns are mental processes).
Claims 24-28
Claims 24-28 recite a wide variety of remediation operations. MPEP 2106.05(f) states that, “a particular, practical application of the judicial exception may amount to significantly more or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.” Contrarily, the large range of remediation operations of Claims 24-28 are “apply it” because instead of reciting a specific technical solution, they show that the invention can be applied to a plethora of problems, as the invention at its core is an analysis and evaluation. Claims 24-28 merely apply results of the high-level, generic analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 11-12, 15-16, 18, 20, and 23-24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Souche et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0110647 A1), hereinafter referred to as Souche.
With regards to Claim 1, Souche teaches:
A system, comprising (Fig. 7; Fig. 7):
a processor programmed to (Paragraphs 0042-0048):
access an indication of an occurrence of an event, an alert, or a situation detected at a channel in relation to a computer resource, wherein the event, the alert, or the situation indicates an alert state of the computer resource (Fig. 5; Paragraph 0028, alarms or notifications received by management with respect to an issue or event);
evaluate the event, the alert, or the situation against one or more user-defined conditions included in one or more automation rules that can each trigger a corresponding self-healing workflow (Paragraphs 0028, alarms or notifications received with respect to an issue or event; Paragraphs 0030-0031, workflow; Paragraphs 0038 and 0025, user edits and definitions of the workflow and script), the user-defined conditions having been stored in a machine-readable interchange format (Paragraph 0025);
wherein to evaluate the event, the alert, or the situation, the processor is programmed to (Paragraph 0048) parse the machine-readable interchange format and compare the event, the alert, or the situation against the one or more user-defined conditions (Paragraphs 0023 and 0025-0026, comparing a detected issue to user defined metrics or conditions);
determine that a user-defined condition from among the one or more user-defined conditions of an automation rule for triggering the self-healing automation has been satisfied based on the evaluation (Fig. 5; Paragraph 0030, determining a workflow match; Paragraphs 0025, 0028, 0030, and 0037-0039, continuing through branches of the workflow and process based on meeting conditions);
select the automation rule, from among the evaluated one or more automation rules, based on the determination that the user-defined condition of the automation rule has been satisfied (Fig. 5; Paragraph 0030, determining a workflow match; Paragraphs 0025, 0028, 0030, and 0037-0039, continuing through branches of the workflow and process based on meeting conditions), wherein the automation rule is stored in association with a workflow identifier that is mapped to the automation rule (Fig. 1-2, identifiers displayed; Paragraphs 0018 and 0023-0025, example workflows referred to by names such as “the router workflow”; Paragraph 0030, retrieving a workflow based off attributes, tags, device type, or identifier; Paragraphs 0041-0048, storing);
identify a self-healing workflow based on the workflow identifier (Paragraphs 0018-0019, router workflow chosen due to issue with router; Fig. 1-2; Paragraph 0030, retrieving a workflow based off attributes, tags, device type, or identifier);
automatically execute the identified self-healing workflow, which triggers execution of an automation agent comprising computer-executable code that performs, on the computer resource, one or more computer remediation operations specified by the identified self-healing workflow to mitigate the alert state (Paragraphs 0038-0039 and 0018-0019, script).
With regards to Claim 2, Souche teaches the system of Claim 1 as cited above. Souche further teaches:
receive, from a responsible party associated with the alert state, the one or more user- defined conditions to onboard the self-healing automation (Paragraphs 0025 and 0018);
generate the automation rule based on the one or more user-defined conditions and map the automation rule to the self-healing workflow (Paragraphs 0025 and 0018);
and store the mapped automation rule and self-healing workflow for automated retrieval and matching (Paragraphs 0024-0025).
With regards to Claim 3, Souche teaches the system of Claim 2 as cited above. Souche further teaches:
before the self-healing workflow is associated with the alert state, transmit an indication of the alert state to the responsible party via an intelligent process automation portal, wherein the automation rule and corresponding self-healing workflow are configured based on input from the responsible party to set up automated self-healing for the alert state (Paragraphs 0018, 0025-0026, and 0028).
With regards to Claim 5, Souche teaches the system of Claim 2 as cited above. Souche further teaches:
access an indication of an occurrence of a second event, a second alert, or a second situation detected at the channel in relation to the computer resource, wherein the second event, the second alert, or the second situation indicates a second alert state of the computer resource (Paragraph 0018, the process, including multiple workflows and scenarios);
determine that the second alert state has not been onboarded for self-healing automation (Paragraphs 0018 and 0025);
and transmit an indication for manual resolution by a second responsible party that is associated with the second alert state (Paragraphs 0018 and 0025).
With regards to Claim 6, Souche teaches the system of Claim 5 as cited above. Souche further teaches:
receive, from the second responsible party associated with the second alert state, a specification of a second automation rule and corresponding second self-healing workflow (Paragraphs 0018, 0025-0026, and 0028);
and store the second automation rule and corresponding second self-healing workflow in a self-healing datastore (Paragraphs 0024-0025).
With regards to Claim 8, Souche teaches the system of Claim 1 as cited above. Souche further teaches:
the event management platform, wherein the event management platform is programmed to (Paragraph 0048):
receive one or more events associated with a technology stack, generate an alert based on the one or more events, cluster the alert with at least one other alert to generate a situation, and generate an automation request to request the self-heal automation responsive to the situation (Paragraphs 0019-0020 and 0033, status information, related devices, and script to remediate the situation; Paragraphs 0038-0039, script).
All limitations of Claims 11-12, 15-16, and 18 have been addressed in the analyses of Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 8, respectively. Please see the above rejections for further details.
With regards to Claim 20, Souche teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, programs the processor to (Paragraphs 0042-0048; Fig. 5 and 7) …
Souche teaches the remaining limitations of Claim 20. Please see the analysis of Claim 1 regarding citations of these limitations under the prior art.
With regards to Claim 23, Souche teaches the system of Claim 1 as cited above. Souche further teaches:
wherein the user-defined condition of the automation rule comprises: a threshold value associated with a monitored system parameter comprising a computational load, a storage capacity, and/or a number of logon attempts (Paragraphs 0028 and 0032, thresholds; Paragraph 0018, low memory or high processor load issues);
and a comparison operation configured to determine that the threshold value is exceeded based on the event, alert, or situation, wherein the automation rule is selected based on the threshold value (Paragraphs 0028 and 0032, thresholds; Fig. 5, continuation of the workflow).
With regards to Claim 24, Souche teaches the system of Claim 1 as cited above. Souche further teaches:
wherein the computer resource comprises an application service or a device, and the alert state indicates that the application service or the device is non- responsive (Paragraphs 0017-0019);
and wherein the computer-executable code causes the automation agent to restart the non-responsive application service or the non-responsive device (Paragraphs 0017-0019 and 0038-0039, restarting the router via an automated script).
With regards to Claim 28, Souche teaches the system of Claim 1 as cited above. Souche further teaches:
wherein the computer resource comprises a database, and the alert state relates to database performance, database security, or database data integrity (Paragraph 0023, low storage in database);
and wherein the computer-executable code causes the automation agent to execute a database diagnostic (Paragraph 0023, remediating low storage in database; Paragraph 0039, script can automatically remediate issue).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souche in view of Adetunji (“What is an API Gateway and Why is it Useful?” 2023).
With regards to Claim 21, Souche teaches the system of Claim 1 as cited above. Souche further teaches:
wherein to initiate the self-healing workflow, the processor is programmed to, without user intervention (Paragraph 0039, script):
generate an automation request (Paragraphs 0019-0020, 0033, and 0038-0039, steps of the workflow that lead to an automatic remediation by a script);
transmit, …, the automation request to a task automation platform that is logically separate from the processor (Paragraphs 0016-0017 and Fig. 1, send across to different devices; Paragraphs 0019-0020, 0033, and 0038-0039, steps of the workflow that lead to an automatic remediation by a script);
and execute, by the task automation platform responsive to the automation request, one or more automation agents to perform the one or more remediation operations on the computer resource (Paragraphs 0019-0020, 0033, and 0038-0039, steps of the workflow that lead to an automatic remediation by a script).
Souche does not explicitly teach:
… via an automation application programming interface (API) gateway …
However, Adetunji teaches:
transmit, via an automation application programming interface (API) gateway, the automation request to a task automation platform that is logically separate from the processor (Pages 1-4 and 8);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in which said subject matter pertains to, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, utilize an API gateway, as taught by Adetunji, to send tasks to logically separate platforms, in the system of Souche, as the API gateway can perform a multitude of management functions and are easier to develop than other methods (Pages 1-11).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souche in view of Adetunji, further in view of Maatouk et al. (“Timely Updates With Priorities: Lexicographic Age Optimality,” 2022), hereinafter referred to as Maatouk.
With regards to Claim 22, Souche in view of Adetunji teaches the system of Claim 21 as cited above. Souche in view of Adetunji further teaches:
wherein the automation API gateway is further programmed to (Adetunji, Pages 1-4 and 8, API and requests):
generate a unique automation … identifier for the automation request (Souche, Paragraphs 0038-0039, automation request based on the event; Souche, Paragraph 0025, identifiers for events and other elements);
… automation … automation identifier generated by the task automation platform (Souche, Paragraphs 0038-0039, automation request based on the event; Souche, Paragraph 0025, identifiers for events and other elements);
and retrieve status updates of the self-healing workflow based on the association of the … automation identifier (Souche, Paragraphs 0014 and 0033, relevant metrics for each step).
Souche in view of Adetunji does not explicitly teach:
… reference …
associate the … reference identifier with an …
… based on the association of the … reference identifier with the … identifier.
However, Maatouk teaches:
… reference (Section (II)(B), Queuing Model, using indices for different identifiable data items) …
associate the … reference identifier with an … identifier generated by the task automation platform (Section (II)(B), Queuing Model, using indices for different identifiable data items);
and retrieve status updates of the … workflow based on the association of the … automation identifier (Pages 3020-3023, using indices for different identifiable data items and using those indices to retrieve status updates).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in which said subject matter pertains to, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, use additional identifiers to determine updates, such as queuing indices, as taught by Maatouk, in the system of Souche in view of Adetunji, in order to better track updates and take into account timing requirements (Maatouk, Pages 3020-3023).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souche in view of Saha et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0284045 A1), hereinafter referred to as Saha.
With regards to Claim 25, Souche teaches the system of Claim 1 as cited above. Souche further teaches:
wherein the alert state indicates that a service is (Paragraph 0018) …;
and wherein the computer-executable code causes the automation agent to perform a process … to mitigate the alert state (Paragraph 0039).
Saha teaches the following limitation not explicitly taught by Souche:
… hung or non-executing (Paragraph 0022);
… restart (Paragraph 0022) ...
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in which said subject matter pertains to, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, restart an unresponsive application, as taught by Saha, in the system of Souche, in order to remediate the problematic software (Saha, Paragraph 0022).
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Souche in view of Wikipedia, “Log Rotation,” 2021, hereinafter referred to as Log Rotation.
With regards to Claim 26, Souche teaches the system of Claim 1 as cited above. Souche further teaches:
wherein the computer resource comprises a disk, and the alert state indicates that the disk is running out of disk space (Paragraph 0018, low memory issue; Paragraph 0025, memory issue can relate to a disk);
and wherein the computer- executable code causes the automation agent to (Paragraph 0039) … from the disk (Paragraph 0025, disk to be troubleshooted).
Log Rotation teaches the following limitation not explicitly taught by Souche:
… delete excess data (Page 1) …
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in which said subject matter pertains to, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, rotate logs, as taught by Log Rotation, in the system of Souche, in order to avoid overflowing memory (Log Rotation, Page 1).
With regards to Claim 27, Souche teaches the system of Claim 1 as cited above. Souche further teaches:
wherein the alert state indicates that one or more … files associated with the computer resource are overly large (Paragraphs 0018 and 0025, low memory issue) …
and wherein the computer-executable code causes the automation agent to (Paragraph 0039) …
Log Rotation teaches the following limitation not explicitly taught by Souche:
… log (Page 1) …
rotate the one or more log files (Page 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in which said subject matter pertains to, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, rotate logs, as taught by Log Rotation, in the system of Souche, in order to avoid overflowing memory (Log Rotation, Page 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 7th, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regards to arguments that the solution is specified, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraphs 0001-0006 describe the issue and solution of the invention as faster matching of a remediation to an issue, meaning that the solution and heart of the invention are the evaluation and remediation matching process. This evaluation is accomplished by human-defined rules. The human defined rules are not specified, and the matching and comparing of these rules to issues and remediations are left entirely to the computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Automation of a generic solution itself is not enough to integrate abstract ideas into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Applicant further argues that the new dependent claims 24-28 provide specific solutions. As explained above, the improvement is to the mental process and not the technology itself (MPEP 2106.04(a)(II), second paragraph, improvement to an abstract idea is an abstract idea). Furthermore, as stated above, the claims fail to recite, “a particular, practical application of the judicial exception,” which would integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Instead, several different problems and solutions, broadly related to computer technology, are claimed in Claims 24-28, as opposed to a particular solution. By adding a myriad of solutions and problems in Claims 24-28, it is made clear that the invention is the matching evaluation process.
For at least these reasons, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Please see the above rejections for further details.
Applicant argues that the claims should be allowable under the prior art. Examiner respectfully disagrees. With regards to the newly amended features of the independent claims, particularly agent-based automated remediation, Souche teaches automating remediation steps using a script (Paragraphs 0038-0039). The agent is interpreted as some form of computer code, as described in Paragraph 0030 of the specification. Examiner notes that the claim terminology, such as rules, conditions, etc., are very broad, and that due to the broadest reasonable interpretation, Souche teaches all limitations of Claim 1. Souche, Souche in view of Log Rotation, and Souche in view of Saha further teach new dependent Claims 24-28. Please see the above rejections for further details.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIELLA SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3117. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-3PM 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, 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.
/G.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2113
/MARC DUNCAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights