DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response RCE filed on 10 February 2026.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 15-18, and 20-28 are pending. Claims 3, 9-14, and 19 are canceled. The pending claims have been considered and examined.
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, 2, 4-8, 15-18, and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, an abstract idea. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. However, the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of the claims regarding subject matter eligibility in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG):
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis
Step 1: Do the Claims Specify a Statutory Category?
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 21-22, and 24-28 are directed to a method/process, claim 8 is directed to a computing device/system, and claims 15-18 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 1-2, 4-7, 21-22, and 24-28
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Independent claim 1, recites the limitations “extracting,…, a plurality of identifying features of the network device;”(mental process), “determining,…, identification information of the network device based on the identifying features;” (mental process), “determining,…, whether to replace the network device based on the identification information, wherein an upgrade status corresponding to the determination of whether to replace the network device comprises an affirmative upgrade status or a negative upgrade status;” (mental process), and “generating,…, an upgrade status report if the upgrade status is determined to be an affirmative upgrade status” (mental process). The limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
The limitations cite processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., use of a processor or a generic computer). That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The limitations involve observing and identifying information, making determination about the information, and generating information that is a result of the determination, thereby describing an observation, evaluation, and/or opinion of data. Generating information can be done with pencil and paper. Such an observation, evaluation, and/or opinion of data can be performed by a human and recites a mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the practical performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 2, 4-7 cite further details pertaining to “extracting”, “determining”, “determining”, and “generating” specified in claim 1; and additionally, “performing, …, a troubleshooting protocol”, “accessing a set of device-specific information”, “generating a troubleshooting prompt”, “generating,…, a troubleshooting insight”, “generating a first troubleshooting recommendation”, “adding, …, visual guides to the images to create modified image”, “generating an indicator light insight”, “generating a hardware placement prompt”, “generating a hardware placement insight”, “generating a hardware placement recommendation”. Each of the limitations in these dependent claims describes processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, contain mental processes directed to performing the abstract idea identified in claim 1.
Claims 21-22, and 24-28 cite further details pertaining to “extracting”, “determining”, “determining”, and “generating” specified in claim 1; and additionally, “evaluates whether the received image satisfies one or more image-quality criteria”, “generating, …, a feature-extraction prompt that constrains the GenAI to output a structured set of device attributes”, “generating a troubleshooting prompt, usable to prompt the GenAI component, comprising at least one of a troubleshooting query about the network device or the device-specific information”, “wherein the generating the troubleshooting prompt comprising embedding the retrieved device-specific information into the troubleshooting prompt”, “modifying the image to add visual guides identifying physical locations on the network device”, “generating the troubleshooting prompt comprises generating the troubleshooting prompt based on an output of a prior feature-extraction interaction with the GenAl component; and the GenAl component is prompted in a plurality of sequential stages comprising a feature extraction stage and a troubleshooting stage.” Each of the limitations in these dependent claims describes processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, contain mental processes, that could be done in the human mind or with pen and paper, and are directed to performing the abstract idea identified in claim 1.
In claims 2, 4-7, 21, 22, and 24-28 , the limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the practical performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, claims 2-7 each recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 1 cites “providing a network hardware troubleshooting application”, “a user client device”, and “troubleshooting application”. This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 1 cites “comprising a GenAI component”. Citing the use of an Artificial Intelligence without any specification of details pertaining to how the associated AI environment is trained and/or how the actual AI is performed. Such details would include description of specific algorithms used in training the AI model. As currently written, the limitations in the claims describe merely certain data inputted to the AI environment and received. There is no indication that the combination of elements solves a technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing artificial intelligence technology in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s).
Claim 1 cites “receiving, …, an image of first scene comprising a network hardware setup comprising a network device”. This limitation describes insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1 cites “and “providing the upgrade status report for display on the user client device”. The limitation describes insignificant extra-solution activity. There is no indication that the combination of elements solves a technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing displays and user interfaces in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exception. Simply displaying the results of the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose display and user interface does not describe an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(a))
As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 2, 4-7 describe further details regarding the extracting”, “determining”, “determining”, and “generating”. These claims contain no additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Claim 21, cites “in response to determining that the image does not satisfy the image-quality criteria, prompts the user client device to capture and transmit an additional image.”. The limitation describes insignificant extra-solution activity. There is no indication that the combination of elements solves a technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing displays and user interfaces in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exception. Simply displaying the results of the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose display and user interface does not describe an inventive concept.
Claim 22, cites “wherein the image-quality criteria correspond to at least one of blurriness, noise, exposure, empty space, sharpness or definition.”. These limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.”
Claim 25 cites “wherein the structured set of device attributes is output in JSON or XML comprising at least one of a list, array, or key/value pairs.”. These limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.”
Claim 26 cites “if the upgrade status is the negative upgrade status, accessing device-specific information based on the identification information” and “wherein accessing the device-specific information comprising retrieving at least one of a device manual, a technical specification, or a troubleshooting guide corresponding to the identification information;”. These limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering and pertaining selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.”
Accordingly, these 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(s).
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.
In the instant case, as detailed in the analysis for Step 2A-Prong 2, claim 1 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea. The computer system, i.e. application and user client device, recited in the claim describe a generic computer and/or computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 21-22, and 24-28 recite limitations regarding the use of GenAI, an artificial intelligence environment. As discussed above in the Step 2A - Prong 2 analysis regarding integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the limitations, as currently written, describe merely certain data inputted to the AI environment and received. There is no indication that the combination of elements solves a technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing artificial intelligence technology in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor or other generic computer component, or utilizing generic artificial intelligence technology to apply the identified judicial exception, does not describe an inventive concept.
Conclusion
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 1-2, 4-7, 21-22, and 24-28 recite and are directed to abstract ideas and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea(s). Claims 1-2, 4-7, 21-22, and 24-28 are therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2 Analysis for Claim 8
Claim 8, contain limitations for a system which are similar to the limitations for the method specified in claim 1. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1, Step 2A – Prong 2, and Step 2B for claim 8 is similar to that presented above for claim 1.
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.
Claim 8 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of a “a computing device comprising” a processor; and memory comprising processor-executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause performance of operations”. The processor, memory and instructions cited in the claim describe generic computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception. The configuring of the processor, memory and instructions recites intended use of the claimed limitations and does not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception.
Conclusion
In light of the above, the limitations in claim 8 recite and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract ideas(s). Claim 8 is therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 15-18 and 20
Claims 15-18 and 20, contains limitations for a non-transitory computer-readable medium which are similar to the limitations for the methods specified in claims 1, 2, and 4-6. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1, Step 2A – Prong 2, and Step 2B for claims 15-18 and 20 are similar to that presented above for claim 1, 2, and 4-6.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 17 recites “wherein the identifying features comprise at least one of a shape, a surface texture, a color, an antennae count, an indicator light count, or an orientation, and wherein device-specific information comprises a portion of at least one of one or more user manuals, one or more guides, or one or more technical specifications directed to the at least one network device.”. These limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
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.
Claims 15-18 and 20 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea.
Claims 15-18 and 20 recites the additional elements of a “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed facilitate performance of operations”. The computer-readable medium cited in the claim describe generic computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception. The executing of instructions recites intended use of the claimed limitations and does not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception.
Conclusion
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 15-18 and 20 recite and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract ideas(s). Claims 15-18 and 20 are therefore not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see page 9, filed 26 January 2026, concerning the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim is directed to “extracting,…, a plurality of identifying features of the network device;”(mental process), “determining,…, identification information of the network device based on the identifying features;” (mental process), “determining,…, whether to replace the network device based on the identification information, wherein an upgrade status corresponding to the determination of whether to replace the network device comprises an affirmative upgrade status or a negative upgrade status;” (mental process), and “generating,…, an upgrade status report if the upgrade status is determined to be an affirmative upgrade status” (mental process). The limitations cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
The additional limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer and GenAI (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or describes insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g))., or insignificant extra-solution activity of displaying a result (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Claim 1 cites various computer systems, i.e. application and user client device, recited in the claim describe a generic computer and/or computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Claim 1 cites the use of GenAI. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor or other generic computer component, or utilizing generic artificial intelligence technology to apply the identified judicial exception, does not describe an inventive concept.
Concerning new claims 21-22 and 24-28, the Applicant argues the new claims should not be rejected under the 35 USC 101 abstract idea rejection of the previous claims. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. See above 35 USC 101 rejection for further details.
Concerning new claim 23, the Applicant argues the claim should be rejected under the 35 USC 101 abstract idea rejection of the previous claims. The Examiner agrees. Claim 23 has been objected to for being dependent from a rejection base claim, however would be considered allowable if rewritten in independent form.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH D MANOSKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3648. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am to 3:30pm.
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.
/JOSEPH D MANOSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113 March 13, 2026