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
2. 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, 3-11, 13-20
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. However, the claimed invention is directed to a mental process of collecting data and performing statistical/mathematical concepts without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of the claims regarding subject matter eligibility in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG):
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis
Step 1: Do the Claims Specify a Statutory Category?
Claims 1, 3-9, 20 describe a method/process, claims 11, 13-19 describe a system, and claim 10 describes a non-transitory computer-readable medium, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 1-9
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 1 recites generating an incident record based on event records, generating a vector based on the record, detecting similar records based on the vector and similar vector, detecting a remediation action, generating an adapted remediation action, and initiating said adapted action. The limitations describe processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., use of a processor or a generic computer). That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The limitations involve making evaluations of the collected object information in order to determine a pattern and then identify associated problems for that pattern, thereby describing an observation and/or evaluation of data. Such an observation and/or evaluation of data can be performed by a human and recites a mental process. The step of initiating an adapted remediation action can be interpreted as merely creating a trouble ticket, emailing an admin, etc. all which can be done using a computer as a tool via a mental process.
The applicant has amended the claim recite wherein the adapted remediation action comprises two instructions, initiating the first instruction, determining if the first instruction is complete, then initiating the second instruction. The examiner interprets this as performing a mental process on a computer or using a generic computer as a tool for the mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)IIIC. The applicant has not detailed what the remediation entails so it can be interpreted as merely saving a first remediation data and then saving second remediation data after the first is saved, or it could be interpreted as an instruction to construct a ticket, then communicating the ticket to an admin.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the practical performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 3-4 recite generating more prompts using a LLM to output data. Without specific details on how the model performs the claimed steps, the examiner interprets this as merely using a high-level, generic model to output data that can be a result of a mental process.
Claims 5-9 recites more mental processes and mathematical concepts. As explained in the October 2019 Update to the 2019 PEG, when determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), consideration must be given as to whether a claim recites a mathematical concept or merely includes limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept.
Claim 20 recites deploying and initiating a remediation action in a cloud environment. The step of initiating an adapted remediation action can be interpreted as merely creating a trouble ticket, emailing an admin, etc. all which can be done using a computer as a tool via a mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes the performance of mathematical calculations (even if a formula is not recited in the claim), then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, claims 5-9 each recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claims 1, 3-9, 20 recite a computing environment and a large language model. Even if the described methods are implemented on a computer, there is no indication that the combination f elements in the claim solves any particular technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing computer technology in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exceptions. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s). The computing environment and models cited in the claim is described at a high level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 1, 3-9, 20 also recite collecting data, generating records and vectors with said data. The claims also recite comparing the data to prior data to generate an adapted remediation action and initiating it. These limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering, generating results, and generically applying a resolution to an identified problem, respectively, without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Claims 3-9 further recite using an LMM and mathematical concepts. There is no indication that the combination of elements solves a technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing artificial intelligence technology (i.e., machine learning) in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s).
The applicant has also added claim 20 to recite deploying and initiating a remediation action. The examiner interprets this language as using an equivalent language of “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.04(d)I, “The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.” The applicant has also added language of the remediation deployment in a cloud environment. The examiner refers the applicant to the same section of the MPEP, wherein it states “Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
In the instant case, as detailed in the analysis for Step 2A-Prong 2, claims 1-9 contain additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea. The computing environment and LMM recited in the claim describe a generic computer processor and/or computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
The limitations pertaining to gathering of object information, calculating results, and generically applying a resolution to an identified problem describe insignificant extra-solution activity and are written at a high level in a generic manner without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. Therefore, these limitations recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas defined in the claim.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 11-19
Claims 11-, 13-19 contain limitations for a system which are similar to the limitations for the methods specified in claims 1, 3-9, respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1, Step 2A – Prong 2, and Step 2B for claims 11, 13-19 is similar to that presented above for claims 1, 3-9.
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 11-19 recite and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract ideas(s). Claims 11, 13-19 are therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2 Analysis for Claim 10
Claim 10 contains limitations for a non-transitory computer-readable medium which are similar to the limitations for the methods specified in claims 1, 3-9, respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1 and Step 2A – Prong 2 for claim 10 is similar to that presented above for claims 1, 3-9.
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Claim 10 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites the additional elements of a storage medium and processors. The computer-readable medium and processors cited in the claim describe generic computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception. The enabling of the processors to troubleshoot a performance problem recites intended use of the claimed limitations and does not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
With respect to the USC 102 rejection, the examiner has removed this rejection in light of the present amendment as Wong does not teach nor have motivation to generate a remediation action that comprises of conditional instruction completion.
With respect to the USC 101 rejection, the applicant has argued the present amendment overcomes the rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As the examiner has recited in the above rejection. The examiner interprets the new language as performing a mental process on a computer or using a generic computer as a tool for the mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)IIIC. The applicant has not detailed what the remediation entails so it can be interpreted as merely saving a first remediation data and then saving a second remediation data after the first is saved, or it could be interpreted as an instruction to construct a ticket, then communicating the ticket to an admin. The applicant has argued in the present Remarks that a human cannot mentally perform the instructions and determine when the first instruction is complete to execute the second instruction. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner contends a human can use a generic computer to facilitate the claimed language of observing execution of an instruction on a display of a computer and then using the computer to initiate the next instruction.
The examiner suggests more detail of the remediation action and instructions being executed to transform the system.
Conclusion
4. 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 CHRISTOPHER S MCCARTHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER S MCCARTHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights