DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claim 1-20 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s 05/01/2024 filing with the Office.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 11-20 are interpreted in light of Specification [151] “tangible storage 1540 may be removable or non-removable, and includes magnetic disks, magnetic tapes or cassettes, CD-ROMs, DVDs, or any other medium which can be used to store information in a non-transitory way, and which can be accessed within the computing system” and [159] “methods can be implemented as computer-executable instructions or a computer program product stored on one or more computer-readable storage media, such as tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage media”. The claimed One or more computer-readable storage media is understood to be limited to a non-transitory storage media.
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 an abstract idea (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claims 1-8 are to a system (machine), claims 9-10 are to a method (process), and claims 11-20 are to storage media (manufacture).
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Where certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). Where mental processes relates to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claim 1 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
1. A computing system comprising:
at least one memory;
one or more hardware processor units coupled to the at least one memory; and
one or more computer readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed,
cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
receiving a request to generate an incident report for a software support incident;
receiving information describing the software support incident;
submitting at least a portion of the information describing the software support incident to a natural language generator in a prompt comprising instructions defining a report format or with a report template or report example;
receiving a response from the natural language generator, the response comprising entries for one or more fields defined in the report template;
by executing at least a portion of the computer-executable instructions, inserting the entries into a report for the software support incident; and
saving the report in a work management tool.
The claimed limitations are direct toward the generation of an incident report, using a standard template (question and answer form). The claim is found to fall in the abstract categories of a mental process and organizing human activity. The claims are to the simple creation of a report, a summary of collected information surrounding an incident. Where when read in the light of the specification, all information is gathered from a human user and the system simply complies it using a report template/example. Where the as claimed is an “example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). But for the high level claimed software elements the claim could be carried using the power of a human’s mind’s ability to observe and reason - "performed by humans without a computer." MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Further the claims describe “certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The “receiving” elements are determined to be steps of data-gathering – insignificant extra solution activity.
Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination. The computing components are made to such a high level of generality that they are generic thus well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field. See Specification “the innovations may be implemented in diverse general-purpose or special-purpose computing systems.” (Spec. [148]).
Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Straub et al (US 2020/0042295 A1) .
Claim 1
Straub teaches a computing system comprising (Straub [2] “systems and methods for facilitating information collection and sharing”):
at least one memory (Straub [171] “computing system 500 may include a processor 502, an operating system 504, a memory 506, and an input/output (I/O) interface 508”);
one or more hardware processor units coupled to the at least one memory (Straub [26] “a computing environment may be any collection of computing resources used to perform one or more tasks involving computer processing. A computer may be any processor in communication with a memory.”); and
one or more computer readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed (Straub [172] “Computing device 500 also includes a software application 510, which may be stored on memory 506 or on any other suitable storage location or computer-readable medium. Software application 510 provides instructions that enable processor 502 to perform the functions described herein and other functions.”),
cause the computing system to perform operations comprising (Straub [172] “Software application 510 provides instructions that enable processor 502 to perform the functions ”):
receiving a request to generate an incident report for a software support incident (Straub [90] “ a customer files a new service request”);
receiving information describing the software support incident (Straub abstract “ recording plural incidents filed by customers seeking assistance”);
submitting at least a portion of the information describing the software support incident to a natural language generator in a prompt comprising instructions defining a report format or with a report template or report example (Straub [6] “as natural language input describing the task to be performed (e.g., describing the information to be collected using the micro app)”, [42] “one or more UI controls 32 for enabling natural language input”, [43] “ natural language may be any speech or representation of speech, i.e., spoken or written language”, and fig 1, 3a, 3b);
receiving a response from the natural language generator, the response comprising entries for one or more fields defined in the report template (Straub [6] “micro apps can be selectively constructed based in part on context information, such as incident number, data stored in association with the incident number, etc., and based on additional information, such as natural language input describing the task to be performed (e.g., describing the information to be collected using the micro app)” and fig. 6);
by executing at least a portion of the computer-executable instructions, inserting the entries into a report for the software support incident; and saving the report in a work management tool (Straub [139] “ storing the received or obtained information in a database (e.g., the incident database 26 of FIGS. 1-2), such that the information is accessible to one or more software applications (e.g., represented by the technician incident report app UI 28 of FIGS. 1-2) of the second person (e.g., technician)”and fig. 7).
Claim 2
Straub teaches all the limitations of the computing system of claim 1, wherein receiving information describing the software support incident comprising receiving communications between software support engineers discussing the software support incident (Straub [124] and [165]).
Claim 3
Straub teaches all the limitations of the computing system of claim 2, the operations further comprising:
extracting at least portion of the information describing the software support incident to provide extracted incident information (Straub [44-46]); and
storing the at least a portion of the extracted incident information in a relational database (Straub [45]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4-8, 11-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straub et al (US 2020/0042295 A1) as applied above and in further view of Gratton et al (US 2021/0081559 A1).
Claim 4
Straub teaches all the limitations of the computing system of claim 3, wherein the at least . . . and the extracting at least a portion of the information describing the software support incident comprises submitting the communications between software support engineers to a natural language generator in a prompt defining an extraction task (Straub [44-46]).
Straub does not expressly teach wherein the at least a portion of the extracted incident information comprises an incident start time and at least one incident end time
Gratton, in an analogous art teaches the extracted incident information comprises an incident start time and at least one incident end time (Gratton [531-532])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Straub the extracted incident information comprises an incident start time and at least one incident end time as taught by Gratton since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 5
Straub in view of Gratton teaches all the limitations of the computing system of claim 4, Straub does not expressly teach wherein the incident start time and at least one incident end time are in different date or time formats.
Gratton, in an analogous art teaches wherein the incident start time and at least one incident end time are in different date or time formats (Gratton [783]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Straub the incident start time and at least one incident end time are in different date or time formats as taught by Gratton since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 6
Straub in view of Gratton teaches all the limitations of the computing system of claim 5, Straub does not expressly teach wherein the prompt defining an extraction task comprising an instruction to convert incident start and end times to a common format.
Gratton, in an analogous art teaches wherein the prompt defining an extraction task comprising an instruction to convert incident start and end times to a common format (Gratton [783]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Straub the incident start time and at least one incident end time are in different date or time formats as taught by Gratton since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 7
Straub in view of Gratton teaches all the limitations of the computing system of claim 5, Straub does not expressly teach wherein the software support incident is associated with multiple end times and the natural language generator associates the multiple end times with an incident start time for the software support incident.
Gratton, in an analogous art teaches wherein the software support incident is associated with multiple end times and the natural language generator associates the multiple end times with an incident start time for the software support incident. (Gratton [531-532])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Straub the wherein the software support incident is associated with multiple end times and the natural language generator associates the multiple end times with an incident start time for the software support incident as taught by Gratton since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 8
Straub in view of Gratton teaches all the limitations of the computing system of claim 3, Straub does not expressly teach wherein the extracting is performed automatically according to a schedule.
Gratton, in an analogous art teaches wherein the extracting is performed automatically according to a schedule (Gratton [530]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Straub the wherein the extracting is performed automatically according to a schedule as taught by Gratton since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 11
Straub teaches one or more computer-readable storage media comprising (Straub [181]):
computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a computing system comprising at least one hardware processor and at least one memory coupled to the at least one hardware processor, cause the computing system to receive software support information describing one or more software support incidents or efforts to resolve the one or more software support incidents (Straub [171-172]);
Straub does not expressly teach
computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the computing system, cause the computing system to submit at least a portion of the software support information to a natural language generator with an instruction to extract a start time and one or more end times for the one or more software support incidents from the software support information; and
computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the computing system, cause the computing system to receive a response from the natural language generator, the response comprising extracted start and end times for one or more software support incidents.
Gratton, in an analogous art teaches
computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the computing system, cause the computing system to submit at least a portion of the software support information to a natural language generator with an instruction to extract a start time and one or more end times for the one or more software support incidents from the software support information (Gratton [531-532]); and
computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the computing system, cause the computing system to receive a response from the natural language generator, the response comprising extracted start and end times for one or more software support incidents (Gratton [531-532]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Straub the computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the computing system, cause the computing system to submit at least a portion of the software support information to a natural language generator with an instruction to extract a start time and one or more end times for the one or more software support incidents from the software support information; and computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the computing system, cause the computing system to receive a response from the natural language generator, the response comprising extracted start and end times for one or more software support incidents as taught by Gratton since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 12
Straub in view of Gratton teaches all the limitations of the one or more computer-readable storage media of claim 11, Straub does not expressly teach further comprising:
computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the computing system, cause the computing system to submit an instruction to the natural language generator to convert the extracted start and end times to a common format.
Gratton, in an analogous art teaches computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the computing system, cause the computing system to submit an instruction to the natural language generator to convert the extracted start and end times to a common format (Gratton [783]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Straub the computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the computing system, cause the computing system to submit an instruction to the natural language generator to convert the extracted start and end times to a common format as taught by Gratton since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 13
Straub in view of Gratton teaches all the limitations of the one or more computer-readable storage media of claim 12, Straub does not expressly teach the following limitation but Gratton, in an analogous art teaches wherein the instructions to convert the extracted start and end times to a common format is provided in a prompt to the natural language generator separate from a prompt comprising the instruction to extract the start and one or more end times (Gratton [531-532]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Straub the computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the computing system, cause the computing system to submit at least a portion of the software support information to a natural language generator with an instruction to extract a start time and one or more end times for the one or more software support incidents from the software support information; and computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the computing system, cause the computing system to receive a response from the natural language generator, the response comprising extracted start and end times for one or more software support incidents as taught by Gratton since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 14
Straub in view of Gratton teaches all the limitations of the one or more computer-readable storage media of claim 13, Straub does not expressly teach the following limitation but Gratton, in an analogous art teaches wherein the one or more software support incidents comprise a plurality of software support instances and multiple prompts comprising the instruction to extract the start and one or more end times are submitted to the natural language generator and the extracted start and one or more end times for the plurality of software support incidents are collectively submitted to the natural language generator in the prompt to convert the extracted start and one or more end times to a common format (Gratton [531-532]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Straub the wherein the one or more software support incidents comprise a plurality of software support instances and multiple prompts comprising the instruction to extract the start and one or more end times are submitted to the natural language generator and the extracted start and one or more end times for the plurality of software support incidents are collectively submitted to the natural language generator in the prompt to convert the extracted start and one or more end times to a common format as taught by Gratton since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 15
Straub in view of Gratton teaches all the limitations of the one or more computer-readable storage media of claim 14, Straub does not expressly teach the following limitation but Gratton, in an analogous art teaches wherein the prompt to convert the extracted start and one or more end times to a common format further comprises an instruction to associate a start time and one or more end times in the common format with corresponding software support incidents of the plurality of software support incidents (Gratton [531-532]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Straub the wherein the one or more software support incidents comprise a plurality of software support instances and multiple prompts comprising the instruction to extract the start and one or more end times are submitted to the natural language generator and the extracted start and one or more end times for the plurality of software support incidents are collectively submitted to the natural language generator in the prompt to convert the extracted start and one or more end times to a common format as taught by Gratton since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 16
Straub in view of Gratton teaches all the limitations of the one or more computer-readable storage media of claim 15, further comprising:
computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the computing system, cause the computing system to calculate respective durations for software support incidents of the plurality of software support incidents (Straub abstract, [63], and [110]).
Claim 17
Straub in view of Gratton teaches all the limitations of the one or more computer-readable storage media of claim 16, further comprising:
computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the computing system, cause the computing system to render a display of identifiers of respective software support incidents and their respective durations (Straub [48] and [61]).
Claim 19
Straub in view of Gratton teaches all the limitations of the one or more computer-readable storage media of claim 15, Straub does not expressly teach the following limitation but Gratton, in an analogous art teaches wherein the prompt to convert the extracted start and end times to a common format further comprises an instruction to generate operations to insert into a database information for the plurality of software support incidents and their respective start and end times (Gratton [531-532]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Straub the wherein the prompt to convert the extracted start and end times to a common format further comprises an instruction to generate operations to insert into a database information for the plurality of software support incidents and their respective start and end times as taught by Gratton since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 20
Straub in view of Gratton teaches all the limitations of the one or more computer-readable storage media of claim 19, wherein the prompt comprises an example insert operation or insert operation template (Staub fig.4, [43], and [115]).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straub et al (US 2020/0042295 A1) in view of Bures et al (US 2020/0322703 A1).
Claim 9
Straub teaches a method, implemented in a computing system comprising at least one hardware processor and at least one memory coupled to the at least one hardware processor (Straub [2] and [26]), the method comprising:
receiving a software support incident mitigation request, the software support incident mitigation request comprising an incident identifier and incident information for a software support incident (Straub abstract and [128]);
encoding the incident information to provide semantic embeddings for the incident information (Straub [65]);
searching stored semantic embeddings of historical information for historical software incidents (Straub [106], [129], and [146]);
identifying one more historical software incidents similar to the semantic embeddings for the incident information (Straub [146]);
Straub does not expressly teach
submitting the semantic embeddings of the one or more historical software incidents to a natural language generator with an instruction to identify actions to resolve the software support incident based on the one or more historical software incidents (]); and
sending a response to the software support incident mitigation request, the response comprising one or more actions identified by the natural language generator.
Bures, in an analogous art, teaches
submitting the semantic embeddings of the one or more historical software incidents to a natural language generator with an instruction to identify actions to resolve the software support incident based on the one or more historical software incidents (Bures [319]); and
sending a response to the software support incident mitigation request, the response comprising one or more actions identified by the natural language generator (Bures [234] and [246]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Straub the submitting the semantic embeddings of the one or more historical software incidents to a natural language generator with an instruction to identify actions to resolve the software support incident based on the one or more historical software incidents; and sending a response to the software support incident mitigation request, the response comprising one or more actions identified by the natural language generator. as taught by Bures since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 10
Straub in view of Bures teach all the limitations of the method of claim 9, wherein submitting embeddings of the one or more historical software incidents comprises submitting a prompt to the natural language generator that comprises a mitigation report template or an example mitigation response (Straub [6], [48], and [94]).
Claim 18 is/are NOT rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102/103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McKeeman et al (US 8,935,153) teaches a natural language incident reports received from a user are analyzed to determine a category associated with the incident. A database of existing incidents is analyzed to determine whether a report for the incident has already been submitted. The current status or state of the device associated with the incident is then ascertained and the incident, if new, is added to an incident database. If the incident is preexisting, the incident in the database is updated with the current status. A solution database is then queried to determine any solutions, automatic or manual workflows, that may correct the error or fault associated with the incident. The determined solution is communicated to the device associated with the incident for implementation.
Li et al (US 2025/0005589) teaches a method that includes obtaining incident data associated with an incident; obtaining a set of reportable criteria related to the incident; identifying, using one or more classifiers, a subset of the reportable criteria described in the incident data; transmitting a summarization request to a language model, where the summarization request includes the subset of the reportable criteria and the incident data; and transmitting an incident status report received from the language model to one or more users.
Abadi et al (US 2025/0348360 A1) teaches a plurality of workflows 121. Each workflow comprises a plurality of ordered actions which are executed in response to an initial trigger action. Each action represents one or more computational operations carried out during execution of the workflow. Example triggers are the occurrence of a pre-determined event (e.g. a security alert or incident), a scheduled start time or in response to a user request.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623