Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-6,8-9,11-16,18-19 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is directed to mental processes.
The limitations ‘determining a system sector of a system for a system deficiency auto-correction analysis; identifying, one or more physical assets that support system functions of the system sector; determining, a self-analysis evaluation perspective for use in performing the system deficiency auto-correction analysis on the system sector; determining, a discovered evaluation perspective for use in performing the system deficiency auto-correction analysis on the system sector; determining, data gathering parameters for use in performing the system deficiency auto-correction analysis; obtaining, by the analysis system, discovered system build data in accordance with the self- analysis evaluation perspective, the discovered evaluation perspective, the data gathering parameters and one or more system criteria; identifying from the discovered system build data, a plurality of system deficiencies that negatively impact operational performance of the one or more physical assets that support the system functions of the system sector’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘by the analysis system’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘interacting, with the system sector corrective measures to resolve the plurality of system deficiencies within the system sector’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 2, representative claim for claim 12, recites: wherein the determining the plurality of system deficiencies further comprises: engaging with the system sector to produce discovered system operation data for the system sector- are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)); determining at least one deficiency of the plurality of system deficiencies further based on the discovered system operation data. The examiner submits that foregoing limitations comprise a mental process.
Claim 3, representative claim for claim 13, recites: determining a system aspect of the system sector for the system deficiency auto-correction analysis from a system build perspective and from a system assets perspective. The examiner submits that foregoing limitations are mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Claim 4, representative claim for claims 14, recites: obtaining, based upon the system aspect, the discovered system build data for the system sector - are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 5, representative claim for claim 15, recites: wherein the one or more physical assets include at least one of: a computing entity; a computing device; a user software application; a system software application; a software tool; a network software application; a security software application; and a system monitoring software application are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 6, representative claim for claim 16, outputting, by the analysis system, a notification regarding the corrective measures enacted by the analysis system to resolve the plurality of system deficiencies. The examiner submits that foregoing limitations are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 8, representative claim for claim 18, recites: determining an evaluation metric based upon at least one of governmental and/or regulatory requirements, system resiliency requirements, security risk awareness and/or risk remediation information, security risk avoidance, performance optimization information, system development guidelines, software development guidelines, hardware requirements, networking requirements, networking guidelines, and/or other system proficiency guidance. The examiner submits that foregoing limitations are mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. The limitation ‘by the analysis system’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 9, representative claim for claim 19, recites: selecting the system to evaluate organization awareness of the system; selecting the at least the section of the system as an organization division of a plurality of organization divisions; selecting system sector as a department of the organization division of the plurality of organization divisions; selecting the system sector as a group of the department of the organization division of the plurality of organization divisions; selecting the system sector based on a physical asset; and selecting the at least the section of the system based on a conceptual asset type. The examiner submits that foregoing limitations comprise are mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 11, with exception of the limitation ‘A computer readable storage medium comprises: a first memory section for storing operational instructions that, when executed by an analysis system that includes one or more computing entities operably coupled to a system via a secure digital communication, causes the analysis system to’, the claim is directed to mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
The limitations ‘determining a system sector of a system for a system deficiency auto-correction analysis; identifying, one or more physical assets that support system functions of the system sector; determining, a self-analysis evaluation perspective for use in performing the system deficiency auto-correction analysis on the system sector; determining, a discovered evaluation perspective for use in performing the system deficiency auto-correction analysis on the system sector; determining, data gathering parameters for use in performing the system deficiency auto-correction analysis; obtaining, by the analysis system, discovered system build data in accordance with the self- analysis evaluation perspective, the discovered evaluation perspective, the data gathering parameters and one or more system criteria; identifying from the discovered system build data, a plurality of system deficiencies that negatively impact operational performance of the one or more physical assets that support the system functions of the system sector’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘by the analysis system’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘interacting, with the system sector corrective measures to resolve the plurality of system deficiencies within the system sector’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/19/2025 have been fully considered. The 101 rejection still stands for the newly added limitations. Please see the above rejection. The double patenting and prior art rejection have been withdrawn based on the addition of the newly added limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yolanda L Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-3653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30 am - 4 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.
/Yolanda L Wilson/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights