Non-Final Office 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 Objections
In view of the recent amendments, the objections to claims 1, 8, and 15 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, an evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The following is an analysis of the claims:
Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claims recite upgrading resources based on a schedule (change windows) and validating the resource upgrades. Upgrading resources and validating the resource upgrades can be performed by a human without the use of a computer. The specification and drawings recite interacting with users to perform the resource upgrades, and the validation is merely comparing the old system with the upgraded system to determine that the upgrade occurred. Further, using conventional generative artificial intelligence to generate a change window is nothing more than using artificial intelligence to perform a function previously performed by a human—creating a schedule. Creating a schedule (a change window) for when to perform the upgrade and validating the upgrade amounts to nothing more than a mental process.
Claims 1-5:
Step 1: Do the claims specify a statutory category?
Claims 1-5 recite a system—a machine and a manufacture
Claim 1:
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
determine a type of the resource upgrade request, wherein the type of the resource upgrade request comprises at least one of a standard upgrade request, a normal upgrade request, an emergency upgrade request, and a latent upgrade request; generate one or more change windows to implement the resource upgrade request; generate a prediction score associated with each of the one or more change windows, wherein the prediction score represents an exposure risk associated with implementing the resource upgrade request during each change window based on at least operational status data and historical data stored in the data warehouse; generate server level scores and density scores associated with the implementation of the resource upgrade request; select a change window of the one or more change windows based on the prediction score associated with each of the one or more change windows, the server level scores, and the density scores; perform validation of the implementation of the resource upgrade request; and generate one or more notifications associated with the validation.
These limitations recite a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: determine a type of the resource upgrade request, wherein the type of the resource upgrade request comprises at least one of a standard upgrade request, a normal upgrade request, an emergency upgrade request, and a latent upgrade request by making an observation, judgment, and evaluation; generate one or more change windows to implement the resource upgrade request by making an observation, judgment, and evaluation; generate a prediction score associated with each of the one or more change windows, wherein the prediction score represents an exposure risk associated with implementing the resource upgrade request during each change window based on at least operational status data and historical data stored in the data warehouse by making an observation, judgment, and evaluation; generate server level scores and density scores associated implementation of the resource upgrade request by making an observation, an evaluation, and judgment; select a change window of the one or more change windows based on the prediction score associated with each of the one or more change windows, the server level scores, and the density scores by making a judgment; perform validation of the implementation of the resource upgrade request by making an evaluation and judgment; and generate one or more notifications associated with the validation (a mental process).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
The additional limitations A system for dynamically performing resource upgrades based on determining change windows via a generative artificial intelligence engine, comprising: at least one processing device; at least one memory device; and a module stored in the at least one memory device comprising executable instructions executed by the at least one processing device amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). These limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional limitation collect one or more records associated with entity resources from an incident management system, a technology registry, a resource registry, an application registry, and a user registry and store the one or more records in a data warehouse and then using operational status data and historical incident data stored in the data warehouse to generate a prediction score amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity—mere data gathering. The limitations only amount to a generic link of use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use in a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the additional limitation receive a resource upgrade request associated with a first entity resource can be performed by a human. A human can receive a verbal request or an email indicating that a upgrade needs to be performed. The additional limitation does not implement the abstract idea into a practical application and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
The additional limitation generate one or more change windows to implement the resource upgrade request, via a generative Artificial Intelligence engine amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. The specification describes the generative artificial intelligent engine in para. [0024] as being well-understood and conventional. The generative artificial intelligence engine is described at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional limitation implement the resource upgrade request associated with the first entity resource during the change window amounts to nothing more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation a human (user) could implement the upgrade by using a computer as a tool. The specification describes the upgrade request being performed using user input in para. [0053], and that it is typical (routine) to upgrade resources frequently in para. [0025]. Additionally, implementing the resource upgrade request merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception that is described as typical (specification: para. [0025]). Bisono et al, Feldman et al. (upgrades to improve and extend the existing system to fulfill business needs), and Ng disclose the well-known practice of upgrading resources. Further, the limitation generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
The additional limitation and transmit one or more notifications associated with the validation to one or more users associated with a set of entity resources linked with the resource upgrade request associated with the first entity resource amounts to nothing more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation a human could transmit a notification via a phone call, text, or email. Further, the limitation merely amounts to post extra-solution activity of outputting data and does not implement the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
When considering the claim as a whole these additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. The additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim.
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.
The additional limitation A system for dynamically performing resource upgrades based on determining change windows via a generative artificial intelligence engine, comprising: at least one processing device; at least one memory device; and a module stored in the at least one memory device comprising executable instructions executed by the at least one processing device is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: para. [0037]-[0038].
The additional limitation collect one or more records associated with entity resources from an incident management system, a technology registry, a resource registry, an application registry, and a user registry and store the one or more records in a data warehouse and then using operational status data and historical incident data stored in the data warehouse to generate a prediction score is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i and iv).
The additional limitation receive a resource upgrade request associated with a first entity resource can be performed by a human. A human can receive a verbal request or an email indicating that a upgrade needs to be performed. Generic actions performed by a human do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional limitation generate one or more change windows to implement the resource upgrade request, via a generative Artificial Intelligence engine amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. The specification describes the generative artificial intelligent engine in para. [0024] as being well-understood and conventional. The generative artificial intelligence engine is described at a high level of generality and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional limitation implement the resource upgrade request associated with the first entity resource during the change window amounts to nothing more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation a human (user) could implement the upgrade by using a computer as a tool. The specification describes the upgrade request being performed using user input in para. [0053], and that it is typical (routine) to upgrade resources frequently in para. [0025]. Generic actions performed by a human do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, implementing the resource upgrade request merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception that is described as typical (specification: para. [0025]). Bisono et al, Feldman et al. (upgrades to improve and extend the existing system to fulfill business needs) and Ng disclose the well-known practice of upgrading resources. Further, the limitation generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and does not add significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05 A).
The additional limitation and transmit one or more notifications associated with the validation to one or more users associated with a set of entity resources linked with the resource upgrade request associated with the first entity resource is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i). Further, the limitation amounts to nothing more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation a human could transmit a notification via a phone call, text, or email. Generic actions performed by a human do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2:
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 2 recites the limitation comparing the pre-implementation snapshot and the post-implementation snapshot. This limitation is a mental process of making a judgment.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
The additional limitations wherein the executable instructions cause the at least one processing device to perform the validation of the implementation of the resource upgrade request based on: capturing a pre-implementation snapshot of the set of entity resources that are linked with the resource upgrade request before the implementation of the resource upgrade request; capturing a post-implementation snapshot of the set of entity resources that are linked with the resource upgrade request after the implementation of the resource upgrade request do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim limitations recite a generic computer performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality. Taking a snapshot is merely gathering stored data such as configuration settings or device statuses. The limitations amount to the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering which is then used in the mental process of comparing the snapshots (data).
Step 2B: Do the claims provide an inventive concept?
The additional limitations wherein the executable instructions cause the at least one processing device to perform the validation of the implementation of the resource upgrade request based on: capturing a pre-implementation snapshot of the set of entity resources that are linked with the resource upgrade request before the implementation of the resource upgrade request; capturing a post-implementation snapshot of the set of entity resources that are linked with the resource upgrade request after the implementation of the resource upgrade request do not add “significantly more” than the judicial exception. The limitations amount to the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering which is then used in the mental process of comparing the snapshots (data).
Claim 3:
Claim 3 recites the additional limitations: wherein capturing the pre-implementation snapshot and the post-implementation snapshot of the set of entity resources comprises capturing at least one of data configurations, server configurations, operation status of services, and digital certificates associated with each of the set of entity resources. The claim limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim limitations recite a generic computer performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality. Capturing at least one of data configurations, server configurations, operation status of services, and digital certificates associated with each of the set of entity resources is merely data gathering. The limitations amount to the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering which is then used in the mental process of comparing the data (snapshots).
Further, the additional limitations do not add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Claim 4:
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 4 recites: determine that the validation of the implementation of the resource upgrade request is not successful based on comparing the post-implementation snapshot and the post-implementation snapshot; determine one or more emergency change windows for performing reimplementation of at least a part of the resource upgrade request; select an emergency change window of the one or more emergency change windows; and revalidate the reimplementation of at least the part of the resource upgrade request.
These limitations recite a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: determine that the validation of the implementation of the resource upgrade request is not successful based on comparing the post-implementation snapshot and the post-implementation snapshot by performing an evaluation and making a judgment; determine one or more emergency change windows for performing reimplementation of at least a part of the resource upgrade request by making an observation and a judgment; select an emergency change window of the one or more emergency change windows by making a judgment; and revalidate the reimplementation of at least the part of the resource upgrade request by performing an observation, evaluation, and judgment.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
The additional limitation reimplement at least part of the resource upgrade request during the emergency change window amounts to nothing more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation a human (user) could implement the upgrade by using a computer as a tool. The specification describes the upgrade request being performed using user input in para. [0053], and that it is typical (routine) to upgrade resources frequently in para. [0025]. Further, the limitation generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and does not add significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05 A).
The additional limitation transmit one or more notifications associated with the reimplementation of at least the part of the resource upgrade request to one or more users amounts to nothing more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation a human could transmit a notification via a phone call, text, or email. Further, the limitation merely amounts to post extra-solution activity of outputting data and does not implement the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: Do the claims provide an inventive concept?
The additional limitation reimplement at least part of the resource upgrade request during the emergency change window amounts to nothing more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation a human (user) could implement the upgrade by using a computer as a tool. The specification describes the upgrade request being performed using user input in para. [0053], and that it is typical (routine) to upgrade resources frequently in para. [0025]. Generic actions performed by a human do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Further, the limitation generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and does not add significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05 A).
The additional limitation transmit one or more notifications associated with the reimplementation of at least the part of the resource upgrade request to one or more users is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i). Further, the limitation amounts to nothing more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation a human could transmit a notification via a phone call, text, or email. Generic actions performed by a human do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5:
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 5 recites the executable instructions cause the at least one processing device to generate a validation summary based on comparing the pre-implementation snapshot and the post-implementation snapshot. This limitation is the mental process of making an observation, an evaluation, and judgment.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
The additional limitation transmit the validation summary with the one or more notifications does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitation amounts to nothing more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation a human could transmit a notification via a phone call, text, or email. Further, the limitation merely amounts to post extra-solution activity of outputting data and does not implement the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: Do the claims provide an inventive concept?
The additional limitation transmit the validation summary with the one or more notifications is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i). Further, the limitation amounts to nothing more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation a human could transmit a notification via a phone call, text, or email. Generic actions performed by a human do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 8-12:
Step 1: Do the claims specify a statutory category?
Claims 8-12 recite a computer program product—a manufacture
Claim 8:
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 8 recites the limitations:
determining a type of the resource upgrade request, wherein the type of the resource upgrade request comprises at least one of a standard upgrade request, a normal upgrade request, an emergency upgrade request, and a latent upgrade request; generating one or more change windows to implement the resource upgrade request; generating a prediction score associated with each of the one or more change windows, wherein the prediction score represents an exposure risk associated with implementing the resource upgrade request during each change window based on at least operational status data and historical data stored in the data warehouse; selecting a change window of the one or more change windows based on the prediction score associated with each of the one or more change windows, the server level scores, and the density scores; performing validation of the implementation of the resource upgrade request; and generating one or more notifications associated with the validation.
These limitations recite a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: determining a type of the resource upgrade request, wherein the type of the resource upgrade request comprises at least one of a standard upgrade request, a normal upgrade request, an emergency upgrade request, and a latent upgrade request by making an observation, judgment, and evaluation; generating one or more change windows to implement the resource upgrade request by making an observation, judgment, and evaluation; generating a prediction score associated with each of the one or more change windows, wherein the prediction score represents an exposure risk associated with implementing the resource upgrade request during each change window based on at least operational status data and historical data stored in the data warehouse by making an observation, judgment, and evaluation; generating server level scores and density scores associated implementation of the resource upgrade request by making an observation, an evaluation, and judgment; selecting a change window of the one or more change windows based on the prediction score associated with each of the one or more change windows, the server level scores, and the density scores by making a judgment; performing validation of the implementation of the resource upgrade request by making an evaluation and judgment; and generating one or more notifications associated with the validation (a mental process).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
The additional limitations A computer program product for dynamically performing resource upgrades based on determining change windows via a generative artificial intelligence engine, comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). These limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional limitation collecting one or more records associated with entity resources from an incident management system, a technology registry, a resource registry, an application registry, and a user registry and store the one or more records in a data warehouse and then using operational status data and historical incident data stored in the data warehouse to generate a prediction score amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity—mere data gathering. The limitations only amount to a generic link of use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use in a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the additional limitation receive a resource upgrade request associated with a first entity resource can be performed by a human. A human can receive a verbal request or an email indicating that a upgrade needs to be performed. The additional limitation does not implement the abstract idea into a practical application and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
The additional limitation generating one or more change windows to implement the resource upgrade request, via a generative Artificial Intelligence engine amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. The specification describes the generative artificial intelligent engine in para. [0024] as being well-understood and conventional. The generative artificial intelligence engine is described at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional limitation implementing the resource upgrade request associated with the first entity resource during the change window amounts to nothing more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation a human (user) could implement the upgrade by using a computer as a tool. The specification describes the upgrade request being performed using user input in para. [0053], and that it is typical (routine) to upgrade resources frequently in para. [0025]. Additionally, implementing the resource upgrade request merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception that is described as typical (specification: para. [0025]). Bisono et al, Feldman et al. (upgrades to improve and extend the existing system to fulfill business needs), and Ng disclose the well-known practice of upgrading resources. Further, the limitation generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
The additional limitation and transmitting one or more notifications associated with the validation to one or more users associated with a set of entity resources linked with the resource upgrade request associated with the first entity resource amounts to nothing more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation a human could transmit a notification via a phone call, text, or email. Further, the limitation merely amounts to post extra-solution activity of outputting data and does not implement the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
When considering the claim as a whole these additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. The additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim.
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.
The additional limitation A computer program product for dynamically performing resource upgrades based on determining change windows via a generative artificial intelligence engine, comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: para. [0037]-[0038].
The additional limitation collecting one or more records associated with entity resources from an incident management system, a technology registry, a resource registry, an application registry, and a user registry and store the one or more records in a data warehouse and then using operational status data and historical incident data stored in the data warehouse to generate a prediction score is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i and iv).
The additional limitation receiving a resource upgrade request associated with a first entity resource can be performed by a human. A human can receive a verbal request or an email indicating that a upgrade needs to be performed. Generic actions performed by a human do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional limitation generating one or more change windows to implement the resource upgrade request, via a generative Artificial Intelligence engine amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. The specification describes the generative artificial intelligent engine in para. [0024] as being well-understood and conventional. The generative artificial intelligence engine is described at a high level of generality and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional limitation implementing the resource upgrade request associated with the first entity resource during the change window amounts to nothing more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation a human (user) could implement the upgrade by using a computer as a tool. The specification describes the upgrade request being performed using user input in para. [0053], and that it is typical (routine) to upgrade resources frequently in para. [0025]. Generic actions performed by a human do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, implementing the resource upgrade request merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception that is described as typical (specification: para. [0025]). Bisono et al, Feldman et al. (upgrades to improve and extend the existing system to fulfill business needs) and Ng disclose the well-known practice of upgrading resources. Further, the limitation generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and does not add significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05 A).
The additional limitation and transmitting one or more notifications associated with the validation to one or more users associated with a set of entity resources linked with the resource upgrade request associated with the first entity resource is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i). Further, the limitation amounts to nothing more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation a human could transmit a notification via a phone call, text, or email. Generic actions performed by a human do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 9-12 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 2-5 above.
Claims 15-19:
Step 1: Do the claims specify a statutory category?
Claims 15-19 recite a process.
Claim 15:
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 15 recites the limitations:
determining a type of the resource upgrade request, wherein the type of the resource upgrade request comprises at least one of a standard upgrade request, a normal upgrade request, an emergency upgrade request, and a latent upgrade request; generating one or more change windows to implement the resource upgrade request; generating a prediction score associated with each of the one or more change windows, wherein the prediction score represents an exposure risk associated with implementing the resource upgrade request during each change window based on at least operational status data and historical data stored in the data warehouse; generating server level scores and density scores associated implementation of the resource upgrade request; selecting a change window of the one or more change windows based on the prediction score associated with each of the one or more change windows, the server level scores, and the density scores; performing validation of the implementation of the resource upgrade request; and generating one or more notifications associated with the validation.
These limitations recite a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: determining a type of the resource upgrade request, wherein the type of the resource upgrade request comprises at least one of a standard upgrade request, a normal upgrade request, an emergency upgrade request, and a latent upgrade request by making an observation, judgment, and evaluation; generating one or more change windows to implement the resource upgrade request by making an observation, judgment, and evaluation; generating a prediction score associated with each of the one or more change windows, wherein the prediction score represents an exposure risk associated with implementing the resource upgrade request during each change window based on at least operational status data and historical data stored in the data warehouse by making an observation, judgment, and evaluation; generating server level scores and density scores associated implementation of the resource upgrade request by making an observation, an evaluation, and judgment; selecting a change window of the one or more change windows based on the prediction score associated with each of the one or more change windows, the server level scores, and the density scores by making a judgment; performing validation of the implementation of the resource upgrade request by making an evaluation and judgment; and generating one or more notifications associated with the validation (a mental process).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
The additional limitation collecting one or more records associated with entity resources from an incident management system, a technology registry, a resource registry, an application registry, and a user registry and store the one or more records in a data warehouse and then using operational status data and historical incident data stored in the data warehouse to generate a prediction score amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity—mere data gathering. The limitations only amount to a generic link of use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use in a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the additional limitation receiving a resource upgrade request associated with a first entity resource can be performed by a human. A human can receive a verbal request or an email indicating that a upgrade needs to be performed. The additional limitation does not implement the abstract idea into a practical application and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
The additional limitation generating one or more change windows to implement the resource upgrade request, via a generative Artificial Intelligence engine amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. The specification describes the generative artificial intelligent engine in para. [0024] as being well-understood and conventional. The generative artificial intelligence engine is described at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional limitation implementing the resource upgrade request associated with the first entity resource during the change window amounts to nothing more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation a human (user) could implement the upgrade by using a computer as a tool. The specification describes the upgrade request being performed using user input in para. [0053], and that it is typical (routine) to upgrade resources frequently in para. [0025]. Additionally, implementing the resource upgrade request merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception that is described as typical (specification: para. [0025]). Bisono et al, Feldman et al. (upgrades to improve and extend the existing system to fulfill business needs), and Ng disclose the well-known practice of upgrading resources. Further, the limitation generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
The additional limitation and transmitting one or more notifications associated with the validation to one or more users associated with a set of entity resources linked with the resource upgrade request associated with the first entity resource amounts to nothing more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation a human could transmit a notification via a phone call, text, or email. Further, the limitation merely amounts to post extra-solution activity of outputting data and does not implement the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
When considering the claim as a whole these additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. The additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim.
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.
The additional limitation collecting one or more records associated with entity resources from an incident management system, a technology registry, a resource registry, an application registry, and a user registry and store the one or more records in a data warehouse and then using operational status data and historical incident data stored in the data warehouse to generate a prediction score is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i and iv).
The additional limitation receiving a resource upgrade request associated with a first entity resource can be performed by a human. A human can receive a verbal request or an email indicating that a upgrade needs to be performed. Generic actions performed by a human do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional limitation generating one or more change windows to implement the resource upgrade request, via a generative Artificial Intelligence engine amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. The specification describes the generative artificial intelligent engine in para. [0024] as being well-understood and conventional. The generative artificial intelligence engine is described at a high level of generality and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional limitation implementing the resource upgrade request associated with the first entity resource during the change window amounts to nothing more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation a human (user) could implement the upgrade by using a computer as a tool. The specification describes the upgrade request being performed using user input in para. [0053], and that it is typical (routine) to upgrade resources frequently in para. [0025]. Generic actions performed by a human do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, implementing the resource upgrade request merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception that is described as typical (specification: para. [0025]). Bisono et al, Feldman et al. (upgrades to improve and extend the existing system to fulfill business needs) and Ng disclose the well-known practice of upgrading resources. Further, the limitation generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and does not add significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05 A).
The additional limitation and transmitting one or more notifications associated with the validation to one or more users associated with a set of entity resources linked with the resource upgrade request associated with the first entity resource is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i). Further, the limitation amounts to nothing more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation a human could transmit a notification via a phone call, text, or email. Generic actions performed by a human do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 16-19 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 2-5 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 11, under III. Claims are Patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Applicant argues, “The steps of collecting multi-source operational and historical data into a data warehouse, generating, change windows, computing prediction scores tied to exposure risk, and selecting an optimal implementation window based on server-level and density metrics collectively reflect a practical application in the technical domain of resource and infrastructure management.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The steps noted by Applicant amount to mere data gathering and mental processes. The steps of generating, change windows, computing prediction scores tied to exposure risk, and selecting an optimal implementation window based on server-level and density metrics collectively are mental processes. The Examiner notes that upgrades to computer systems have been and are performed entirely by humans. The claims amount to nothing more than using a computer as a tool to perform mental processes.
On page 11, under III. Claims are Patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Applicant argues, “Like the eligible claims in Example 47, these claims do not stop at producing a prediction, instead they culminate in concrete actions of implementing the upgrade, validating the outcome, and triggering notifications, which improve the functioning of enterprise systems by reducing risk and optimizing upgrade execution. This contrasts with ineligible claims in Example 47 that are limited to training algorithms without application. Here, the integration of AI-driven decision-making into a real-world system that governs resource upgrades and mitigates operational risk demonstrates a comparable technical improvement.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The upgrade can be performed by a human without the use of a computer. Further, the Applicant describes the upgrades as “typical” and are conventional upgrades that merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Validating the outcome is a mental process. Provided a list of a set of resources before and after an upgrade, a user can observe the differences and judge that the upgrade occurred. Further, sending notifications is a mental process of writing and sending an email or a text message to users of the system. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer system or to another technology. The only improvement is to the judicial exception itself, and the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bisono et al. disclose modeling an organization’s operations in order to find an optimal interval for a software upgrade. Additionally, Ng, Bisono et al., and Feldman et al. teach the well-known practice of upgrading enterprise systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MASKULINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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.
/MICHAEL MASKULINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113