DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application submitted on March 22, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
In the interest of facilitating compact prosecution, the Examiner kindly asks the Applicant’s representative to authorize Internet communications with the Examiner by submitting Form PTO/SB/439 using Patent Center.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)-BASED REMEDIATION SCRIPT GENERATION AND CUSTOMIZATION.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “AI” should read -- artificial intelligence (AI) --. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Examiner respectfully submits the relevant portions of MPEP §§ 706(II) and 2173.02(II) and 37 CFR 1.75 with emphasis added for purposes of convenience in discussion and illustration:
MPEP § 706(II) DEFECTS IN FORM OR OMISSION OF A LIMITATION; CLAIMS OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE
When an application discloses patentable subject matter and it is apparent from the claims and the applicant’s arguments that the claims are intended to be directed to such patentable subject matter, but the claims in their present form cannot be allowed because of defects in form or omission of a limitation, the examiner should not stop with a bare objection or rejection of the claims. The examiner’s action should be constructive in nature and when possible should offer a definite suggestion for correction.
MPEP § 2173.02(II) THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS OF CLARITY AND PRECISION
The examiner’s focus during examination of claims for compliance with the requirement for definiteness of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is whether the claim meets the threshold requirements of clarity and precision set forth in the statute, not whether more suitable language or modes of expression are available. When the examiner is satisfied that patentable subject matter is disclosed, and it is apparent to the examiner that the claims are directed to such patentable subject matter, the examiner should allow claims which define the patentable subject matter with the required degree of particularity and distinctness. Some latitude in the manner of expression and the aptness of terms should be permitted so long as 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is satisfied. Examiners are encouraged to suggest claim language to applicants to improve the clarity or precision of the language used, but should not insist on their own preferences if other modes of expression selected by applicants satisfy the statutory requirement.
37 CFR 1.75 Claim(s).
(a) The specification must conclude with a claim particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention or discovery.
According to the sections of the MPEP and the patent rule provided hereinabove, the Examiner would like to point out that a claim must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the Applicant regards as the invention. In accordance with MPEP §§ 706(II) and 2173.02(II) and in the claim objections hereinafter, the Examiner provides suggested claim amendments to keep the claim language consistent throughout the claims in order to improve the clarity or precision of the claim language used. Hence, doing so would help the Examiner in reviewing the claims for compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Examiner believes that making claim amendments to keep the claim language consistent throughout the claims will promote a clearer understanding of the claims and ease of readability for the readers.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 contains a typographical error: “a vector store configured to sore” should read -- a vector store configured to store --.
Claim 1 contains a typographical error: the word “and” should be added after the “a matching engine […]” limitation.
Claims 1 and 8 recite “each of the plurality of incident response scripts.” It should read -- each incident response script of the plurality of incident response scripts --.
Claims 1 and 8 recite “each of the plurality of descriptions.” It should read -- each description of the plurality of descriptions --.
Claims 2 and 9 recite “the remediation script.” It should read -- the tailored remediation script --.
Claims 2 and 9 recite “the success.” It should read -- the success of the application of the remediation script --.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the matching engine is configured to.” It should read -- wherein the matching engine is further configured to --.
Claim 7 contains a typographical error: “historial” should read -- historical --.
Claim 9 contains a typographical error: “modified” should read -- modifying --.
Claim 16 recites “the AI models.” It should read -- the plurality of cloud-based generative AI models --.
Claim 16 recites “each of the remediation scripts.” It should read -- each remediation script of the library of remediation scripts --.
Claim 16 recites “each of the descriptions.” It should read -- each description of the plurality of descriptions --.
Claim 16 recites “the request embedding.” It should read -- the request embedding of the request --.
Claims 16 and 17 recite “the request.” It should read -- the script request --.
Claims 16, 19, and 20 recite “a/the tailored script.” It should read -- a/the tailored remediation script --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitations “execute the second model […]” and “execute the third model […]” at lines 16 and 17, respectively. The claim is rendered vague and indefinite because it only recites executing the second and third models, but does not recite executing the first model. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets the claim as reciting, for example, “execute the first model to generate the plurality of descriptions” for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 17-20 depend on Claim 16. Therefore, Claims 17-20 suffer the same deficiency as Claim 16.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 1 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a system, which is a machine, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites the limitations:
(a) […] generate a plurality of descriptions of each of the plurality of incident response scripts;
(b) […] generate a plurality of vectors for each of the plurality of descriptions;
(c) […] perform a similarity search in the vector store based on the request vector and match a most suitable script from the plurality of incident response scripts based on a similarity measure; and
(d) […] tailor the most suitable script according to the script purpose to generate a tailored remediation script by modifying at least one line in the most suitable script for execution according to the script purpose.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) a script database configured to […];
(2) a script description generative artificial intelligence (AI) model configured to […];
(3) an embeddings generative AI model configured to […];
(4) a vector store configured to […];
(5) a backend server including at least one processor operably coupled to memory, and instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to implement […];
(6) a request handler engine configured to […];
(7) a matching engine configured to […];
(8) a tailoring generative AI model configured to […]; and
(9) wherein the backend server further comprises a remediation engine configured to […].
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating a plurality of incident response scripts in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate a plurality of descriptions. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the plurality of descriptions in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate a plurality of vectors. And the limitation (c) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing a vector store in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to perform a similarity search. And the limitation (d) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing a most suitable script in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to modify at least one line in the most suitable script. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) a script database configured to […];
(2) a script description generative artificial intelligence (AI) model configured to […];
(3) an embeddings generative AI model configured to […];
(4) a vector store configured to […];
(5) a backend server including at least one processor operably coupled to memory, and instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to implement […];
(6) a request handler engine configured to […];
(7) a matching engine configured to […];
(8) a tailoring generative AI model configured to […]; and
(9) wherein the backend server further comprises a remediation engine configured to […].
The additional elements (1) to (9) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The various components are used as a tool to perform the various steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(10) […] store a plurality of incident response scripts;
(11) […] sore [sic] the plurality of incident response scripts, the plurality of descriptions, and the plurality of vectors; and
(12) […] receive a request for a remediation script, the request including a description of a script purpose and generate a request vector from the script purpose.
The additional elements (10) to (12) are mere data gathering/outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/outputting, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/outputting. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(13) […] apply the tailored remediation script to the computer system to remediate the incident.
The additional element (13) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element recites only the idea of applying a tailored remediation script without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the applying solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of applying a tailored remediation script with no restriction on how the applying is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the applying, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) a script database configured to […];
(2) a script description generative artificial intelligence (AI) model configured to […];
(3) an embeddings generative AI model configured to […];
(4) a vector store configured to […];
(5) a backend server including at least one processor operably coupled to memory, and instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to implement […];
(6) a request handler engine configured to […];
(7) a matching engine configured to […];
(8) a tailoring generative AI model configured to […]; and
(9) wherein the backend server further comprises a remediation engine configured to […].
The additional elements (1) to (9) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(10) […] store a plurality of incident response scripts;
(11) […] sore [sic] the plurality of incident response scripts, the plurality of descriptions, and the plurality of vectors; and
(12) […] receive a request for a remediation script, the request including a description of a script purpose and generate a request vector from the script purpose.
The additional elements (10) to (12) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data and storing and retrieving information in memory as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to receive/store a plurality of scripts. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(13) […] apply the tailored remediation script to the computer system to remediate the incident.
The additional element (13) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of applying a tailored remediation script with no restriction on how the applying is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the applying, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activities, and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7 are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the remediation engine is further configured to monitor success of the application of the remediation script to the computer system, wherein the remediation script is modified in the script database based on the success.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 3 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the matching engine is configured to perform the similarity search by a cosine similarity comparison of angles between the plurality of vectors and the request vector.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 4 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the backend server further comprises instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to implement an integration engine configured to trigger the request when an incident is detected.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 5 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein at least one of the script description generative AI model, the embeddings generative AI model, or the tailoring generative AI model is a cloud-based large language model (LLM).
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 6 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein at least one of the script description generative AI model, the embeddings generative AI model, or the tailoring generative AI model are local to the computer system and pre-trained based on a script code base.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 7 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the request handler engine is further configured to determine a pattern associated with historial [sic] user requests, and wherein the tailoring generative AI model is further configured to tailor the most suitable script according to the pattern.
Claims 2, 3, and 7 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 4 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 5 and 6 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and thus, fail to add an inventive concept to the claims (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 2-7 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 1-7 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
<<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>>
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 8 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 8 is directed to a method, which is a process (a series of steps or acts), and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 8 recites the limitations:
(a) generating a plurality of descriptions of each of the plurality of incident response scripts […];
(b) generating a plurality of vectors for each of the plurality of descriptions […];
(c) generating a request vector from the script purpose;
(d) performing a similarity search in the vector store based on the request vector and matching a most suitable script from the plurality of incident response scripts based on a similarity measure; and
(e) tailoring the most suitable script […] according to the script purpose to generate a tailored remediation script by modifying at least one line in the most suitable script for execution according to the script purpose.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) […] using a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model service;
(2) […] using an embeddings generative AI model; and
(3) […] using the generative AI model service […].
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating a plurality of incident response scripts in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate a plurality of descriptions. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the plurality of descriptions in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate a plurality of vectors. And the limitation (c) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating a script purpose in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate a request vector. And the limitation (d) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing a vector store in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to perform a similarity search. And the limitation (e) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing a most suitable script in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to modify at least one line in the most suitable script. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) […] using a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model service;
(2) […] using an embeddings generative AI model; and
(3) […] using the generative AI model service […].
The additional elements (1) to (3) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The various components are used as a tool to perform the various steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(4) storing a plurality of incident response scripts in a script library;
(5) storing the plurality of incident response scripts, the plurality of descriptions, and the plurality of vectors in a vector store; and
(6) receiving a request for a remediation script, the request including a description of a script purpose.
The additional elements (4) to (6) are mere data gathering/outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/outputting, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/outputting. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(7) applying the tailored remediation script to the computer system to remediate the incident.
The additional element (7) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element recites only the idea of applying a tailored remediation script without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the applying solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of applying a tailored remediation script with no restriction on how the applying is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the applying, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) […] using a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model service;
(2) […] using an embeddings generative AI model; and
(3) […] using the generative AI model service […].
The additional elements (1) to (3) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(4) storing a plurality of incident response scripts in a script library;
(5) storing the plurality of incident response scripts, the plurality of descriptions, and the plurality of vectors in a vector store; and
(6) receiving a request for a remediation script, the request including a description of a script purpose.
The additional elements (4) to (6) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data and storing and retrieving information in memory as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to receive/store a plurality of scripts. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(7) applying the tailored remediation script to the computer system to remediate the incident.
The additional element (7) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of applying a tailored remediation script with no restriction on how the applying is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the applying, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activities, and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 9-15 are dependent on Claim 8, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 8.
Claim 9 recites the limitations:
(a) monitoring success of the application of the remediation script to the computer system; and
(b) modified the remediation script in the script library based on the success.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 10 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein performing the similarity search includes a cosine similarity comparison of angles between the plurality of vectors and the request vector.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 11 recites the limitation:
(a) triggering the request when an incident is detected.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 12 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein models from the generative AI model service or the embeddings generative AI model are cloud-based or locally-based large language model (LLM).
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 13 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the request further includes an environmental parameter, the method further comprising tailoring the most suitable script using the generative AI model service according to the environmental parameter by modifying at least one line in the most suitable script for execution according to the environmental parameter.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 14 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein at least one of models from the generative AI model service or the embeddings generative AI model are local to the computer system and pre-trained based on a script code base.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 15 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the generative AI model service is further configured to determine a pattern associated with historical user requests, and further configured to tailor the most suitable script according to the pattern.
Claims 9, 10, 13, and 15 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 11 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 12 and 14 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and thus, fail to add an inventive concept to the claims (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 9-15 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 8 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 8-15 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
<<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>>
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 16 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 16 is directed to a system, which is a machine, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 16 recites the limitations:
(a) […] generate a plurality of descriptions including a description for each of the remediation scripts;
(b) […] generate a plurality of embeddings for the plurality of descriptions including an embedding representation of each of the descriptions;
(c) […] modify a remediation script based on a script request; and
(d) perform a similarity search in the vector store based on the request and match a most suitable script using a cosine similarity comparison of angles between the plurality of embeddings and a request embedding of the request.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) a plurality of cloud-based generative artificial intelligence (AI) models trained on a library of remediation scripts, the AI models including: a first model configure to […], a second model configure to […], and a third model configure to […];
(2) a vector store configured to […]; and
(3) a backend server including a processor and an operable coupled memory and configured to […].
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating a plurality of incident response scripts in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate a plurality of descriptions. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the plurality of descriptions in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate a plurality of embeddings. And the limitation (c) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating a remediation script in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to modify the remediation script. And the limitation (d) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing a vector store in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to perform a similarity search. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) a plurality of cloud-based generative artificial intelligence (AI) models trained on a library of remediation scripts, the AI models including: a first model configure to […], a second model configure to […], and a third model configure to […];
(2) a vector store configured to […]; and
(3) a backend server including a processor and an operable coupled memory and configured to […].
The additional elements (1) to (3) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The various components are used as a tool to perform the various steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(4) […] store associated remediation scripts, descriptions, and embeddings; and
(5) provide the tailored script to the computer system for remediation of the incident.
The additional elements (4) and (5) are mere data gathering/outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/outputting, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/outputting. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(6) execute the second model to generate the request embedding; and
(7) execute the third model to modify the most suitable script to generate a tailored script.
The additional elements (6) and (7) fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element recites only the idea of executing models without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the executing solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of executing models with no restriction on how the executing is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the executing, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) a plurality of cloud-based generative artificial intelligence (AI) models trained on a library of remediation scripts, the AI models including: a first model configure to […], a second model configure to […], and a third model configure to […];
(2) a vector store configured to […]; and
(3) a backend server including a processor and an operable coupled memory and configured to […].
The additional elements (1) to (3) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(4) […] store associated remediation scripts, descriptions, and embeddings; and
(5) provide the tailored script to the computer system for remediation of the incident.
The additional elements (4) and (5) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data and storing and retrieving information in memory as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to receive/store scripts. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(6) execute the second model to generate the request embedding; and
(7) execute the third model to modify the most suitable script to generate a tailored script.
The additional elements (6) and (7) do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional elements attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem of executing models with no restriction on how the executing is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the executing, and do not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activities, and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 17-20 are dependent on Claim 16, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 16.
Claim 17 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the backend server is further configured to trigger the request when an incident is detected.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 18 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the third model is executed to modify the most suitable script according to an incident type and a computer system parameter.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 19 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the backend server is further configured to store the tailored script in a temporary buffer while the tailored script is validated.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 20 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the backend server is further configured to add the tailored script to the library of remediation scripts after being validated.
Claim 18 recites further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claims 19 and 20 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 17 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 17-20 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 16 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 16-20 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the cited prior art. However, the Applicant must overcome any corresponding objections and/or rejections of these claims set forth hereinabove in order to place these claims in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US 2017/0083400 (hereinafter “McEwen”) discloses automated incident resolution of technical issues on end-user computing devices.
US 2025/0077399 (hereinafter “Sen”) discloses generating automation test script using generative artificial intelligence.
US 2025/0291898 (hereinafter “Bu”) discloses generating mitigating response to security deficiencies using generative machine learning models.
US 2025/0291932 (hereinafter “Bu”) discloses tagging security deficiencies using generative machine learning models.
US 2025/0291933 (hereinafter “Bu”) discloses generating remediation strategies for responding to security deficiencies using generative machine learning models.
US 12,056,006 (hereinafter “Bishop”) discloses proactive remediation for information technology assets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Qing Chen whose telephone number is 571-270-1071. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/ interview practice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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 more 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.
/Qing Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191