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 Interpretation
Claim 29 recites “wherein the selected incident-specific model training operation limits model parameter updates to a subset of model parameters associated with an incident type of the matched one or more historical incident.” The limitation can be interpreted as (i) limiting updates to parameters of the model or (ii) updating the model based only on incident parameters related to the model but not based on parameters of the model. Interpretation (i) is not supported, but interpretation (ii) is supported. Therefore, for examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as interpretation (ii).
Claim 34 recites “specific to the current incident” and “to economize computing resources”. These limitations are intended results because the claim contain no steps or structure to implement the limitations. Therefore, the limitations will not be given patentable weight.
Claim 34 recites “a learning operation that limits model updates to parameters relevant to the matched historical incident”. The limitation can be interpreted as (i) limiting updates to parameters of the model or (ii) updating the model based only on incident parameters related to the model but not based on parameters of the model. Interpretation (i) is not supported, but interpretation (ii) is supported. Therefore, for examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as interpretation (ii).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 28 recites “wherein selecting the incident-specific model training operation includes selecting between at least: (i) a first model training operation that weights the dataset data of the matched one or more historical incident more heavily than dataset data of one or more unmatched historical incident, and (ii) a second model training operation that weights the historical text based data of the matched one or more historical incident more heavily than historical text based data of one or more unmatched historical incident”. The original disclosure as filed does not provide support for weighing types of data for training.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites “The computer implemented method of claim 22, wherein delivering executable code associated with the one or more candidate remediation actions comprises generating remediation control data that, when executed in the monitored computer environment, implements at least one of installing updated software on a computing node, initiating a failover to a backup system, or initiating a reset operation”. It is unclear if “delivering executable code” was meant to be an additional limitation. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as the method further comprising “delivering executable code”.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 27-33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more.
Claim(s) 21, 27-33 recite(s) methods. Therefore, claim(s) 1-7, 21, 27-33 fall(s) within a statutory category.
Claim 21 recites abstract ideas.
evaluating alert data received from one or more computer environment in reference to a criterion; detecting that a current incident has occurred based on the criterion being satisfied; performing similarity analysis between the current incident and one or more historical incident; identifying, from the similarity analysis, a match between the current incident and the one or more historical incident corresponds to data analysis steps recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, which are mental processes. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations in light of the specification encompasses automating a manual process of analyzing human-readable alerts ([0041]-[0046], [0050], [0085]-[0086]).
responsively to the identifying of the match, selecting, from among a plurality of model training operations, an incident-specific model training operation based on the match between the current incident and the one or more historical incident corresponds to data analysis steps recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, which are mental processes. Since the specification does not describe how selecting is performed, based on [0062]-[0064] of the specification, this limitation is interpreted as selecting a training operation based on the number of matched historical incidents (i.e. if there is one matched incident, perform one-shot training and if there is more than one matched incident, perform few shot training).
Claim 21 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
A computer implemented method comprising amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer, which is mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
responsively to the identifying of the match, training, using the selected incident-specific model training operation, a predictive model for production of a trained predictive model with use of dataset data of the one or more historical incident and historical text based data describing the one or more historical incident, wherein the historical text based data has been defined by an administrative user, and wherein the selected incident-specific model training operation prioritizes, during the training, dataset data or historical text based data associated with the matched one or more historical incident; querying the trained predictive model subsequent to the training for return of descriptive text based data describing the current incident amounts to merely using a computer in its ordinary capacity, which is mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Since the specification does not describe how prioritizes is performed, based on [0062]-[0064] of the specification, this limitation is interpreted as training on the matched incidents. Training on selected data amounts to merely using a computer in its ordinary capacity.
presenting user prompting data for remediation of the current incident, wherein the prompting data includes the descriptive text based data describing the current incident, wherein the user prompting data identifies a sequence of remediation actions selected based on an output of the trained predictive model, and wherein the sequence of remediation actions includes at least one computer-environment modification action for changing an operating state of an affected computing resource associated with the current incident amounts to mere data output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 27 refines recited abstract ideas.
wherein the similarity analysis includes generating a current incident feature vector from the alert data and comparing the current incident feature vector to one or more historical incident feature vectors associated with the one or more historical incident further describes details of data analysis steps recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, which are mental processes. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses automating a manual process of analyzing human-readable alerts ([0041]-[0046], [0050], [0085]-[0086]).
The claim does not contain additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application and does not contain additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Claim 28 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
wherein selecting the incident-specific model training operation includes selecting between at least: (i) a first model training operation that weights the dataset data of the matched one or more historical incident more heavily than dataset data of one or more unmatched historical incident, and (ii) a second model training operation that weights the historical text based data of the matched one or more historical incident more heavily than historical text based data of one or more unmatched historical incident amounts to merely using a computer in its ordinary capacity, which is mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 29 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
wherein the selected incident-specific model training operation limits model parameter updates to a subset of model parameters associated with an incident type of the matched one or more historical incident amounts to merely using a computer in its ordinary capacity, which is mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 30 refines recited abstract ideas.
wherein the dataset data of the one or more historical incident includes telemetry data specifying at least one of processor utilization, memory utilization, network traffic, storage utilization, service availability, error-log data, or application performance data for a historical affected computing resource further describes the type of data being analyzed using the mental processes.
The claim does not contain additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application and does not contain additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Claim 31 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
wherein the sequence of remediation actions is generated by mapping the descriptive text based data returned by the trained predictive model to a stored remediation workflow associated with the matched one or more historical incident amounts to mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 32 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
wherein the at least one computer- environment modification action includes at least one of restarting a service, allocating additional computing resources, changing a network routing configuration, changing an access control configuration, isolating a computing resource, rolling back an application version, or deploying a software patch amounts to an attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which is mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 33 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
wherein presenting the user prompting data includes presenting, for respective remediation actions of the sequence of remediation actions, an execution order and an indication of an affected computing resource whose operating state is to be changed by the respective remediation action amounts to mere data output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-25, 34 allowed.
Claims 21, 27, 29-33 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claim 26 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Claim 28 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(a) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art of record, either alone or when combined, teaches or suggests all the limitations of claims 21, 22, 34.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the 101 rejections of claims 21, 27-33 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 10-11, Applicant argues:
“Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. As amended, claim 21 is not directed merely to collecting information, comparing information, generating descriptive text, or presenting a recommendation. Rather, claim 21 recites a specific computer-implemented incident remediation process in which alert data from one or more computer environments is evaluated to detect a current incident, similarity analysis is performed between the current incident and one or more historical incidents, and a match identified by the similarity analysis is used to control how a predictive model is trained for the current incident.
In particular, amended claim 21 recites "responsively to the identifying of the match, selecting, from among a plurality of model training operations, an incident-specific model training operation based on the match between the current incident and the one or more historical incident." Claim 21 further recites "training, using the selected incident-specific model training operation, a predictive model," wherein "the selected incident-specific model training operation prioritizes, during the training, dataset data or historical text based data associated with the matched one or more historical incident." These limitations do not merely use a generic computer to perform a business or mental task. They define a particular machine-learning workflow in which the result of the similarity analysis controls the model- training operation and causes training to be prioritized around data associated with the matched historical incident.
The claim therefore cannot reasonably be characterized as a mental process. A human cannot mentally select and execute a model training operation from among a plurality of model training operations, train a predictive model using the selected incident-specific model training operation, prioritize incident-associated dataset data or historical text based data during such training, and then query the trained predictive model to return descriptive text based data for a current computer-environment incident. These are computer-model training and querying operations, not observations, evaluations, or judgments performed in the human mind.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Deciding on a training method to use based on the amount of training data available is a mental process. The training and querying were not indicated as a mental processes.
On pg. 11-12, Applicant argues:
“Claim 21 also integrates any alleged abstract concept into a practical application. The claimed
operations are not performed in isolation or merely for presentation of information. The trained predictive model is queried for return of descriptive text based data describing the current incident, and the resulting user prompting data identifies "a sequence of remediation actions selected based on an output of the trained predictive model." The claim further requires that the sequence of remediation actions includes "at least one computer-environment modification action for changing an operating state of an affected computing resource associated with the current incident." Thus, the claimed process is tied to remediation of a current incident in a computer environment and culminates in a computer-environment modification action that changes the operating state of an affected computing resource.
The amended claim language provides the type of concrete technological implementation that is absent from claims merely directed to displaying results or advising a user. The claimed process uses a similarity-analysis match to select a particular incident-specific model training operation, uses that selected training operation to prioritize historical incident data during model training, queries the resulting trained model, and presents a sequence of remediation actions that includes a computer-environment modification action for changing the operating state of an affected computing resource. Taken as an ordered combination, these limitations provide a practical application of predictive-model training to computer-environment incident remediation.
Applicant has amended independent claim 21, and added dependent claims 27-33, to further clarify that the claims are directed to a specific computer-implemented incident remediation technique rather than to an abstract result of merely evaluating information or advising a user. Claim 21 now recites a particular ordered combination in which alert data from one or more computer environments is evaluated, a current incident is detected, similarity analysis is performed against one or more historical incidents, a match is identified, an incident-specific model training operation is selected from among a plurality of model training operations based on the match, a predictive model is trained using the selected incident-specific model training operation with prioritized historical incident data, the trained predictive model is queried for descriptive text based data describing the current incident, and user prompting data is presented that identifies a sequence of remediation actions including at least one computer-environment modification action for changing an operating state of an affected computing resource.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed process does not result in remediation of a current incident in a computer environment or culminate in a computer-environment modification action that changes the operating state of an affected computing resource. The process merely advises the displays an advised remediation to the user, which amounts to mere data output, an insignificant extra-solution activity.
On pg. 12-13, Applicant argues:
“Thus, even if some individual phrases could be characterized at a high level as involving analysis or decision-making, the claims as a whole apply the analysis in a particular computer-environment incident remediation process. The claims do not merely say to "use AI" or "apply a model" to produce information. Instead, the claims recite a specific integration of incident matching, match-dependent model training operation selection, prioritized training data, trained-model querying, and remediation sequencing that culminates in a modification of an affected computing resource. This is consistent with the USPTO's current eligibility guidance for AI-related inventions, which emphasizes analysis of whether the claim as a whole integrates any asserted abstract idea into a practical application, including through technological improvements or other meaningful limitations. The USPTO's July 2024 AI subject matter eligibility update and examples expressly address AI-related claims under Step 2A and practical-application analysis.
The present claims are closer to a specific computer-environment control/remediation architecture than to an ineligible mental process. A human could not practically perform the claimed combination as recited because the claims require computer-environment alert data, incident feature/vector or telemetry-based analysis in certain dependent claims, incident-specific training operation selection, training of a predictive model, querying of the trained predictive model, and remediation actions that change operating states of computing resources. The claims therefore recite more than observation, judgment, or advice. They improve computer incident response by adapting the training operation to the matched historical incident and using the trained predictive model to drive an ordered remediation sequence for an affected resource.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims amount to performing mental processes to determine data that a model should be trained on, performing the training, and obtaining the output of the model. The claims do not improve training or remediation and merely use AI for mere data gathering.
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 ALBERT LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5721. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM PT.
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.
/A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2113 /BRYCE P BONZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights