NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/3/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks filed 3/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, Remarks argues that the claimed steps cannot be directed to an abstract idea because they encompass AI to perform steps that cannot be performed in the human mind. However, it is noted that, there is no mention of AI or using AI to perform any of the recited steps in the claims. The claims recite steps that, in at least one interpretation, may be performed in the human mind.
Remarks further states that the amended claims reflect the improvements stated in the Specification, which integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. However, according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), in order to reflect the disclosed improvement the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. In this case, the claims do not recite specific steps disclosed in the Specification that relate to the improvement.
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, 2, 4-17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. However, the claimed invention is directed to performing steps that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind. An analysis of the claims regarding subject matter eligibility follows:
Step 1:
Claims 1, 2, and 4-16 recite a method, claims 17, 19, and 21 recite an apparatus, and claims 20 and 22 recite at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions, which are statutory categories of invention, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites obtaining a set of hardware event logs, obtaining a set of performance signals, detecting at least one failed hardware component by generating a log embedding, generating a performance signal embedding, and detecting the at least one fail hardware component, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations entirely in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the steps may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, and judgement of the of the machine (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection Ill). For example, the claimed obtaining event logs and performance signals may encompass a human observing a machine and thinking about or writing down information. The claimed detecting at least one failed hardware component may encompass the human observing or thinking about components of the machine.
Claims 2 and 4-16 recite further limitations that fall under the judicial exception as recited in claim 1. Each of the further limitations encompass performance of the steps within the human mind.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The additional elements recited in claim 1, a machine and hardware components, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations are directed to implementing the abstract idea using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 2-16 recite further details regarding logs and analyzing them. These claims contain no additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong 2 above, the recitations of a machine and hardware components are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data using generic computers and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection Il).
Regarding claims 2-16, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they simply apply the exception using a generic computer.
Claims 17, 19, and 21 are directed to an apparatus for performing the same steps as performed by the method of claims 1, 2, and 10. As such, the analysis is the same as applied to claims 1, 2, and 10.
Claims 20 and 22 are directed to at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions for performing the same steps as performed by the method of claims 1 and 10. As such, the analysis is the same as applied to claims 1 and 10.
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4-17, and 19-22 recite an abstract idea without significantly more, and are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip Guyton whose telephone number is (571)272-3807. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30.
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.
/PHILIP GUYTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights