CTNF 18/760,167 CTNF 101666 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claim 1-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 1 and 18 recite(s): a support document data store containing a plurality of support documents for at least one software component, each support document including a support document identifier and descriptive text describing the support document; and a missing link server, coupled to the support document data store and the support document link data store, including: a computer processor, and a computer memory storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the missing link server to: automatically identify a subset of the support documents in the support document data store as being potential solving support documents, for each potential solving support document, automatically perform a machine learning analysis of the associated descriptive text to generate a link probability, and for each potential solving support document having a link probability above a threshold, automatically generate a potential link message that includes the potential solving document identifier and an associated causing support document identifier. Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter? Yes. Claim 1 is a machine Yes. Claim 18 is a manufacture Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The limitation of "identify", as drafted in #2 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "executed by the computer processor", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person. The limitation of "perform a machine learning analysis", as drafted in #3 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "executed by the computer processor", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person. The limitation of " generate" , as drafted in #4 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "executed by the computer processor", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person on paper. Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The limitations in #1 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "a support document data store containing a plurality of support documents for at least one software component, each support document including a support document identifier and descriptive text describing the support document; and a missing link server, coupled to the support document data store and the support document link data store" in the context of this claim encompasses merely storing and retrieving from memory. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g). Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element: a system, a server, data stores, non-transitory computer readable media, computer processor The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step. Additionally, with regards to #1 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; Claim(s) 2 and 19 recite(s): wherein identification of the potential solving support documents comprises detection of at least one support document identifier in the descriptive text. Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter? Yes. Claim 2 is a machine Yes. Claim 19 is a manufacture Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The limitation, as drafted in #5 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "the system" or "the media", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person. Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element: the system, the media The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step. Claim(s) 3 recite(s): wherein at least some of the support documents in the support document data store further include information about a software patch for the at least one software component. Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter? Yes. Claim 3 is a machine Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The limitations in #6 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "data store further include information" in the context of this claim encompasses mere data recording. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g). Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element: the system The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step. Additionally, with regards to #6 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); Claim(s) 4 recite(s): wherein a solving support document includes information about a software patch to be installed for a software application after a patch associated with an associated causing support document is installed. Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter? Yes. Claim 4 is a machine Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The limitations in #7 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "include information" in the context of this claim encompasses data recording. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g). Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element: the system The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step. Additionally, with regards to #7 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); Claim(s) 5 recite(s): wherein a plurality of potential link messages are compiled into a potential link report for review by a developer. Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter? Yes. Claim 5 is a machine Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The limitation, as drafted in #8 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "the system", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person. Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element: the system The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step. Claim(s) 6 recite(s): wherein the review by the developer classifies each potential link as one of: (i) an actual link, (ii) not an actual link, and (iii) unresolved. Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter? Yes. Claim 6 is a machine Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The limitation, as drafted in #9 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but with generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "the system", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person. Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element: the system The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step. Claim(s) 7 recite(s): a support document link data store including indications of causing support document identifiers and, for each causing support document identifier, an associated link to a solving support document identifier, wherein the potential link classification is used to automatically update the support document link data store, wherein the classifications are used to automatically update the support document link data store. Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter? Yes. Claim 7 is a machine Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The "automatically update" limitation in #11 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, "automatically update" in the context of this claim encompasses merely updating data records. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f). The "including indications" limitations in #10 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "including indications" in the context of this claim encompasses recording data. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g). Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element: the system, data store The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step. Additionally, with regards to #10 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); Claim(s) 8 recite(s): wherein the support document link data store further stores software component identifiers, support document author identifiers, and reviewing developer identifiers. Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter? Yes. Claim 8 is a machine Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The limitations in #12 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "further stores" in the context of this claim encompasses recording data. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g). Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element: the system, data store The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step. Additionally, with regards to #12 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); Claim(s) 9 and 15 recite(s): wherein the supporting document link data store is used to automatically suggest a related support document patch to a customer. Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter? Yes. Claim 9 is a machine Yes. Claim 15 is a method Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The limitation, as drafted in #13 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "data store", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person. Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element: the system, data store The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step. Claim(s) 10 and 16 recite(s): wherein the supporting document link data store is used to automatically review a customer's installed support document patches and generate alerts indicating missing patches. Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter? Yes. Claim 10 is a machine Yes. Claim 16 is a method Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The limitation, as drafted in #14 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "data store is used to", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person. Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element: the system, data store The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step. Claim(s) 11 recite(s): wherein the machine learning analysis is performed by a model trained with potential links classified by developers. Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter? Yes. Claim 11 is a machine Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The limitation, as drafted in #15 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "performed by a model", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person. Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element: the system The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step. Claim(s) 12 recite(s): wherein the model utilizes selected relevant text extracted from the descriptive text of the potential solving support document with the detected support document identifier removed. Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter? Yes. Claim 12 is a machine Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The limitation, as drafted in #16 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but with generic computer part. That is, other than reciting "model utilizes", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person on paper. Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element: the system The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step. Claim(s) 13 recite(s): wherein classifications are used as feedback to adjust and improve the model. Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter? Yes. Claim 13 is a machine Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The limitation in #17 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, "adjust and improve" in the context of this claim encompasses merely training a model. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f). Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element: the system The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step. Claim(s) 14 recite(s): A computer-implemented method associated with software component support, comprising: automatically identifying, by a computer processor of a missing link server, a subset of support documents in a support document data store as being potential solving support documents, wherein the support document data store contains a plurality of support documents for at least one software component, each support document including a support document identifier and descriptive text describing the support document; for each potential solving support document, automatically performing a machine learning analysis of the associated descriptive text to generate a link probability; for each potential solving support document having a link probability above a threshold, automatically generating a potential link message that includes the potential solving document identifier and an associated causing support document identifier; compiling a plurality of potential link messages into a potential link report for review by a developer, wherein the review by the developer classifies each potential link as one of: (i) an actual link, (ii) not an actual link, and (iii) unresolved; and using the classifications to automatically update a support document link data store, wherein the support document link data store includes indications of causing support document identifiers and, for each causing support document identifier, an associated link to a solving support document identifier, wherein the potential link classification is used to automatically update the support document link data store. Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter? Yes. Claim 14 is a method Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The limitation of "identifying", as drafted in #18 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "a computer processor", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person. The limitation of "performing a machine learning analysis", as drafted in #19 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "a computer processor", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person. The limitation of "generate", as drafted in #20 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "a computer processor", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person. The limitation of "compiling", as drafted in #21 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "a computer processor", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person. Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The limitations in #22 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "update a support data link store" in the context of this claim encompasses merely recording data. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g). Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element: a processor, a server, data stores The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step. Additionally, with regards to #22 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); Claim(s) 17 and 20 recite(s): wherein the machine learning analysis is performed by a model trained with potential links classified by developers and the model utilizes selected relevant text extracted from the descriptive text of the potential solving support document with a detected support document identifier removed Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter? Yes. Claim 17 is a method Yes. Claim 20 is a manufacture Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The limitation, as drafted in #23 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but for generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "a model", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person on paper. Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element: the media The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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) 1-5 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US 20240411886 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Sun) and US 20230229547 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Agarwal). Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches: for each potential solving support document, automatically perform a machine learning analysis of the associated descriptive text to generate a link probability (Para. [32], Sun shows "Open source software patches may record the changes between two different versions of source code. The best practices for capturing a snapshot of a software's proposed changes may include making single-purpose commit followed by well-maintained global information tracker (Git) repositories. For example, a “patch” may be or include single-purpose Git commit for addressing a security vulnerability (a security fix), resolving a functionality bug (a non-security repair), or updating a new feature. Security patches are usually considered more urgent and given higher priority than non-security patches. For example, a patch may comprise a “security patch” if it fixes a vulnerability belonging to any Common Weakness Enumeration Specification (CWE) type in the software." Para. [79-80], Sun shows "Classification and/or prediction values may be evaluated at 580 to determine whether such values have achieved a desired accuracy level (e.g., a confidence level for the predicted software patch type). Performance of the prediction model 430 may be evaluated in a number of ways based on a number of true positives, false positives, true negatives, and/or false negatives classifications of the plurality of data points indicated by the prediction model 430. For example, the false positives of the prediction model 430 may refer to a number of times the prediction model 430 incorrectly assigned an accurate software patch type to a historical software patch based on the patchCPG 228 associated with the software patch with a low confidence level. Conversely, the false negatives of the prediction model 430 may refer to a number of times the machine-learning model assigned an inaccurate software patch type to a historical software patch based on patchCPG 228 associated with the software patch with a high confidence level" Examiner notes citations above show analyzing software patches which can be considered a type of support documentation as they contain specific code changes and information about what they are patching within the commit. The model shown also has a confidence level correlating the probability the specific software patch will patch a vulnerability from a current one.) , and for each potential solving support document having a link probability above a threshold, (Para. [36], Sun shows "FIG. 1 is an example method 100 for predicting whether a patch is a security patch. The method 100 may be completed by a computing device 602 or any other computing device described herein. At 105 a target software patch may be received. For example, the target software patch may be received from a local or remote database and/or from the software developer for the software associated with the target software patch. For example, the target software patch may comprise an OSS patch. The target software patch may be an input for the method 100. At 110, the target software patch may be mapped to an intermediate graph representation patchCPG. For example, the intermediate graph representation patchCPG may contain control/data dependency and program syntax. At 115, one or more nodes and/or edges of the intermediate graph representation patchCPG may be converted into embedding matrices. At 120, the embedded matrices may be fed into a graph-based deep neural network PatchGNN detection model. At 125, the PatchGNN detection model may predict if the target software patch is either a security or a non-security software patch. For example, the prediction may be based on the embedding matrices" Para. [38], Sun shows " the target software patch 202 may comprise a software identifier that identifies the software to which the target patch is to be applied. For example, each target patch can be uniquely identified by a commit ID (e.g., a 20-byte SHA-1 hash). For example, the computing device may retrieve and/or receive the pre-patch source code 206 and the post-patch source code based on the software identifier. For example, given the commit ID of the target patch, the source code can be rolled back exactly to the point before and after applying the target patch by using, for example, a git reset command" Examiner notes the above citation shows predicting whether the patch is a solution for a vulnerability issue for the pre-patch code. Predicting implies using probability and possible options to see whether the patch is a solution or not.) . Sun does not disclose: A system associated with software component support, comprising: a support document data store containing a plurality of support documents for at least one software component, each support document including a support document identifier and descriptive text describing the support document; and a missing link server, coupled to the support document data store and the support document link data store, including: a computer processor, and a computer memory storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the missing link server to: automatically identify a subset of the support documents in the support document data store as being potential solving support documents, However, in the analogous art of detecting faulty components, Agarwal teaches: A system associated with software component support, comprising: a support document data store containing a plurality of support documents for at least one software component, each support document including a support document identifier and descriptive text describing the support document (Para. [65-66], Agarwal shows "Next, the query service and/or analytics service can retrieve 408 a troubleshooting recommendation from a library or database based on the error identifier. In some examples, the event processing routine correlates failure information, such as the error identifier, with product support documentation, a library, or a database, in order to provide relevant recommendations to address an issue. For example, the library or database may be stored in a storage local to, or otherwise accessible to, the cloud service, workspace server, and/or analytics service. In an example, the library or database may be indexed to the error identifier as a lookup key for the troubleshooting recommendation. In another example, the system can receive a request from a user or administrator for information based on a transaction ID, as in the example of FIG. 8A below, and can retrieve insights for a transaction based on the transaction ID from an insights store. In some examples, the troubleshooting recommendation retrieved from the library may include a description of the error, possible causes, and/or recommended actions, as in the example of FIG. 8B below. In some examples, the library or database may be relatively static, for example it may contain a comprehensive store of errors and recommendations, which can then be customized to a particular client or tenant by lookup of the particular error identifier. Alternatively or additionally, the library or database may be updated over time. For example, as new errors are encountered, the library or database may be updated to improve, qualitatively and/or quantitatively, its coverage of the range of possible errors. In another example, the library or database may be updated to incorporate new or improved troubleshooting recommendations, such as new workarounds or solutions found to be more effective or expedient than previous recommendations. In yet another example, the library or database may be updated so as to be kept current, for example by incorporating or addressing changes in the virtual applications and desktops technology, e.g. CVADS." Examiner notes the citation above shows a repository of information containing support documentation with descriptions of errors the documentation is linked to and identifiers) ; and a missing link server, coupled to the support document data store and the support document link data store, including: a computer processor, and a computer memory storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the missing link server to: automatically identify a subset of the support documents in the support document data store as being potential solving support documents (Fig. 9(902, 104); Para. [65], Agarwal shows "Next, the query service and/or analytics service can retrieve 408 a troubleshooting recommendation from a library or database based on the error identifier. In some examples, the event processing routine correlates failure information, such as the error identifier, with product support documentation, a library, or a database, in order to provide relevant recommendations to address an issue. For example, the library or database may be stored in a storage local to, or otherwise accessible to, the cloud service, workspace server, and/or analytics service. In an example, the library or database may be indexed to the error identifier as a lookup key for the troubleshooting recommendation. In another example, the system can receive a request from a user or administrator for information based on a transaction ID, as in the example of FIG. 8A below, and can retrieve insights for a transaction based on the transaction ID from an insights store." Examiner notes the above citation shows a server connected to a service with access to query a library containing support documentation. Para. [36], Agarwal shows "the disclosed system and methods can analyze failures and determine specific events that caused a transaction failure, identify the components involved, and correlate this information with product support documentation to provide relevant instructions to solve the issue" Examiner notes this citation shows identifying potential support documentation.) , automatically generate a potential link message that includes the potential solving document identifier and an associated causing support document identifier (Para. [40], Agarwal shows “The analytics service 102 can also provide a query service 114 that can subsequently look up an error identifier associated with a located error, and can provide troubleshooting analysis, visualizations, and recommendations, aiding real-time forensic investigations or historical analysis, as described in the examples of FIGS. 8 A and 8 B below.” Para. [65], Agarwal shows “a troubleshooting recommendation from a library or database based on the error identifier. In some examples, the event processing routine correlates failure information, such as the error identifier, with product support documentation, a library, or a database, in order to provide relevant recommendations to address an issue. For example, the library or database may be stored in a storage local to, or otherwise accessible to, the cloud service, workspace server, and/or analytics service. In an example, the library or database may be indexed to the error identifier as a lookup key for the troubleshooting recommendation.” Examiner notes the above citations shows creating a message to user using an error identifier and recommendations to solve user issues.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Agarwal into the teachings of Sun to implement " A system associated with software component support, comprising: a support document data store containing a plurality of support documents for at least one software component, each support document including a support document identifier and descriptive text describing the support document; and a missing link server, coupled to the support document data store and the support document link data store, including: a computer processor, and a computer memory storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the missing link server to: automatically identify a subset of the support documents in the support document data store as being potential solving support documents, for each potential solving support document, automatically perform a machine learning analysis of the associated descriptive text to generate a link probability, and for each potential solving support document having a link probability above a threshold, automatically generate a potential link message that includes the potential solving document identifier and an associated causing support document identifier ". The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of troubleshooting (Agarwal, Para. [31]). Regarding claim 2, Sun as modified teaches claim 1 as cited above and teaches: wherein identification of the potential solving support documents comprises detection of at least one support document identifier in the descriptive text (Para. [32], Sun shows "Open source software patches may record the changes between two different versions of source code. The best practices for capturing a snapshot of a software's proposed changes may include making single-purpose commit followed by well-maintained global information tracker (Git) repositories. For example, a “patch” may be or include single-purpose Git commit for addressing a security vulnerability (a security fix), resolving a functionality bug (a non-security repair), or updating a new feature. Security patches are usually considered more urgent and given higher priority than non-security patches. For example, a patch may comprise a “security patch” if it fixes a vulnerability belonging to any Common Weakness Enumeration Specification (CWE) type in the software." Para. [38], Sun shows "a target software patch may be received. For example, the target software patch may be received from a local or remote database and/or from the software developer for the software associated with the target software patch. At 204, the pre-patch source code 206 and the post-patch source code 208 are retrieved. For example, the pre-patch source code 206 and the post-patch source code 208 may be retrieved based on the received target software patch. Though the target patch contains multiple lines of context code (e.g., three lines ahead and behind the changed code snippet), critical context related to the target software patch and outside the range of the context code may be missed. Accordingly, the computing device may retrieve the files of full source code before and after applying the patch. Thus, we can obtain the source code files of both pre-patch and post-patch versions. To retrieve the related files in pre-patch 206 and post-patch 208 versions, we implement a parser to analyze the target software patch 202. For example, the target software patch 202 may comprise a software identifier that identifies the software to which the target patch is to be applied. For example, each target patch can be uniquely identified by a commit ID (e.g., a 20-byte SHA-1 hash). For example, the computing device may retrieve and/or receive the pre-patch source code 206 and the post-patch source code based on the software identifier." Examiner notes commit ID can be considered to be a type of support document identifier) Regarding claim 3, Sun as modified teaches claim 1 as cited above and teaches: wherein at least some of the support documents in the support document data store further include information about a software patch for the at least one software component (Para. [38], Sun shows "a target software patch may be received. For example, the target software patch may be received from a local or remote database and/or from the software developer for the software associated with the target software patch. At 204, the pre-patch source code 206 and the post-patch source code 208 are retrieved. For example, the pre-patch source code 206 and the post-patch source code 208 may be retrieved based on the received target software patch. Though the target patch contains multiple lines of context code (e.g., three lines ahead and behind the changed code snippet), critical context related to the target software patch and outside the range of the context code may be missed. Accordingly, the computing device may retrieve the files of full source code before and after applying the patch. Thus, we can obtain the source code files of both pre-patch and post-patch versions. To retrieve the related files in pre-patch 206 and post-patch 208 versions, we implement a parser to analyze the target software patch 202. For example, the target software patch 202 may comprise a software identifier that identifies the software to which the target patch is to be applied. For example, each target patch can be uniquely identified by a commit ID (e.g., a 20-byte SHA-1 hash). For example, the computing device may retrieve and/or receive the pre-patch source code 206 and the post-patch source code based on the software identifier.") Regarding claim 4, Sun as modified teaches claim 3 as cited above and teaches: wherein a solving support document includes information about a software patch to be installed for a software application after a patch associated with an associated causing support document is installed (Para. [34], Sun shows "Software patches may typically include not only the lines of code that will be added and/or removed but also neighboring lines of the code adjacent to the area of the patch within the software. These neighboring lines of code may precede the area of the code being added and/or deleted in the patch and/or be after the area of the code being added and/or deleted in the patch. For example, a software patch may contain six neighboring code lines (e.g., three lines or code preceding the changes and three lines of code following the changes proposed by the software patch, such as line 4-6 and 8-10 in Listing 2). These neighboring lines of code may be provided as context for each code revision. While the example above suggests six lines of code, this is for example purposes only as fewer or greater than six lines of neighboring code may be provided with the software patch. In some examples, these context statements provided by the neighboring code may not provide sufficient semantics to understand the function or operation of the software patch. However, to perform code analysis on an OSS patch, the source code may be retrieved showing the code both before “pre-patch” and after “post-patch” applying the software patch. For example, a software patch may be considered as a security patch when a vulnerability exists in the pre-patch code and the corresponding fix statement(s) are in the post-patch code. In certain examples, security patches may comprise sanity checks, which are security checks on critical values like bound, permission, etc. For example, for the software patch to fix use-after-free and double-free vulnerabilities, sanity checks may be the added conditional statements to check the availability of pointers or memory." Examiner notes the citation above shows software patches include information during analysis about pre-patch and post-patch code) . Regarding claim 5, Sun as modified teaches claim 2 as cited above and teaches: wherein a plurality of potential link messages are compiled into a potential link report for review by a developer (Para. [117], Sun shows " Flawfinder reports 109 and 108 vulnerabilities in pre-patch and post-patch code, respectively. Among them, the overlapping 108 vulnerabilities are detected in both versions of code. A security patch can only be determined if its pre-patch version is vulnerable while its post-patch version is invulnerable. Therefore, only one security patch can be successfully detected by Flawfinder. ReDeBug detects 29 vulnerabilities in both pre-patch and post-patch code, which means no security patches can be detected. VUDDY detects 22 vulnerabilities in pre-patch code, where 21 out of them are correctly detected as secure in the post-patch version. Thus, 21 security patches are identified by VUDDY. Note that these 16 vulnerabilities detected in the post-patch code do not correspond to the same patches as the previous 22 vulnerabilities. VulDeePecker only identifies 3 and 0 vulnerabilities in the pre-patch and post-patch code, respectively, so it can only detect 3 security patches") . With regards to claim 18, it is a computer readable media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1 above. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above. With regards to claim 19, it is a computer readable media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2 above. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US 20240411886 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Sun) and US 20230229547 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Agarwal) in further view of US 20220121846 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Bolgarin). Regarding claim 6, Sun as modified teaches claim 5 as cited above, but does not disclose: wherein the review by the developer classifies each potential link as one of: (i) an actual link, (ii) not an actual link, and (iii) unresolved. However, in the analogous art of document matching, Bolgarin teaches: wherein the review by the developer classifies each potential link as one of: (i) an actual link, (ii) not an actual link, and (iii) unresolved (Para. [41], Bolgarin shows "By linking the two documents together, the host platform 220 can easily retrieve both the source document 230 and the linked target document 210, if necessary (e.g., for an audit, user review, etc.)" Para. [52], Bolgarin shows "the system may provide a confidence value 336 and the class number (material number, code, etc.) of the line items. The system may also provide a user with the ability to review the match with an approve or a reject button." Examiner notes the citations above show users approving a potential match between two documents approving or denying.) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bolgarin into the teachings of Sun to implement "wherein the review by the developer classifies each potential link as one of: (i) an actual link, (ii) not an actual link, and (iii) unresolved ". The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce the inaccuracies cause by machine learning models (Bolgarin, Para. [44]). Claim(s) 7, 11-14, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US 20240411886 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Sun) and US 20230229547 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Agarwal) in further view of US 20220121846 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Bolgarin) and US 20200057858 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Sharma). Regarding claim 7, Sun as modified teaches claim 6 as cited above, but does not disclose: a support document link data store including indications of causing support document identifiers and, for each causing support document identifier, an associated link to a solving support document identifier, wherein the potential link classification is used to automatically update the support document link data store, wherein the classifications are used to automatically update the support document link data store. However, in the analogous art of detecting faulty components, Agarwal teaches: a support document link data store including indications of causing support document identifiers and, for each causing support document identifier, an associated link to a solving support document identifier (Para. [40], Agarwal shows "The analytics service 102 can also provide a query service 114 that can subsequently look up an error identifier associated with a located error, and can provide troubleshooting analysis, visualizations, and recommendations, aiding real-time forensic investigations or historical analysis, as described in the examples of FIGS. 8A and 8B below" Para. [65-66], Agarwal shows "In some examples, the event processing routine correlates failure information, such as the error identifier, with product support documentation, a library, or a database, in order to provide relevant recommendations to address an issue. In another example, the system can receive a request from a user or administrator for information based on a transaction ID, as in the example of FIG. 8A below, and can retrieve insights for a transaction based on the transaction ID from an insights store. In some examples, the troubleshooting recommendation retrieved from the library may include a description of the error, possible causes, and/or recommended actions, as in the example of FIG. 8B below. In some examples, the library or database may be relatively static, for example it may contain a comprehensive store of errors and recommendations, which can then be customized to a particular client or tenant by lookup of the particular error identifier. Alternatively or additionally, the library or database may be updated over time. For example, as new errors are encountered, the library or database may be updated to improve, qualitatively and/or quantitatively, its coverage of the range of possible errors. In another example, the library or database may be updated to incorporate new or improved troubleshooting recommendations, such as new workarounds or solutions found to be more effective or expedient than previous recommendations. In yet another example, the library or database may be updated so as to be kept current, for example by incorporating or addressing changes in the virtual applications and desktops technology, e.g. CVADS." Examiner notes in the citation above the error identifier corresponds to the causing support document identifiers and the solving support document can be linked to the transaction ID as the query service using the error identifier links the troubleshoot recommendations to the transaction ID) , In addition, in the analogous art of vulnerability prediction, Sharma teaches: wherein the potential link classification is used to automatically update the support document link data store, wherein the classifications are used to automatically update the support document link data store (Para. [15], Sharma shows "The generator 116 uses the vulnerability vectors 114 and “ground truth” labeled vulnerability data 102 to generate a vulnerability classifier ensemble 118. The vulnerability classifier ensemble 118 is deployed to identify vulnerabilities in software components which may be in a software project, open source project, and/or open source library. The ensemble 118 generates a probability value that a software component has a flaw and this probability value in association with identification of the software component is inserted into a vulnerability database" Para. [12], Sharma shows "Bug fixes and new features are frequently merged into a central repository, which is then automatically built, tested, and prepared for a release to production, as part of the DevOps practices of continuous integration and continuous delivery (“CI/CD”). However, numerous security-related issues and vulnerabilities are identified and patched without public disclosure due to the focus on fast release cycles and the lack of manpower and expertise. An estimated 53% of vulnerabilities in open source libraries are not disclosed publicly. In addition, fixes to these undisclosed vulnerabilities are sometimes not reported (“silent fixes”)." Examiner notes the citations above show classification of repositories classifying vulnerabilities and linking them in a vulnerability database. As shown above many fixes or vulnerabilities are unidentified, but by classification these fixes are also linked to the vulnerability database. This shows automatic updating of stored information) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Agarwal into the teachings of Sun as modified to implement “ a support document link data store including indications of causing support document identifiers and, for each causing support document identifier, an associated link to a solving support document identifier, wherein the potential link classification is used to automatically update the support document link data store, wherein the classifications are used to automatically update the support document link data store ”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of troubleshooting in virtual computing services (Agarwal, Para. [31]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sharma into the teachings of S to implement “ a support document link data store including indications of causing support document identifiers and, for each causing support document identifier, an associated link to a solving support document identifier, wherein the potential link classification is used to automatically update the support document link data store, wherein the classifications are used to automatically update the support document link data store ”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make bug fixes and solutions to vulnerabilities more available (Sharma, Para. [2]). Regarding claim 11, Sun as modified teaches claim 7 as cited above and teaches: wherein the machine learning analysis is performed by a model trained with potential links classified by developers (Para. [76-77], Sun shows "the training method 500 may determine (e.g., access, receive, retrieve, etc.) first historical software patches, associated patchCPGs 228 generated based on those software patches, and identifiers of the type of each software patch (e.g., a security software patch or a non-security software patch) (e.g., the first portion of the historical software patches described above) and second historical software patches, associated patchCPGs 228 generated based on those software patches, and the identifier of the type of software patch for each software patch (e.g., the second portion of the historical software patches described above). The first historical software patches and the second historical software patches may each comprise one or more multimodal features and a predetermined software patch type based on the patchCPG 228 generated based on the software patch and associated source code for the software. The training method 500 may determine (e.g., extract, select, etc.), at 530, one or more features that can be used by, for example, a classifier to differentiate among different classifications (e.g., software patch types). The one or more features may comprise a set of multimodal features. As an example, the training method 500 may determine a set features from the first historical software patches and associated patchCPGs 228 and software patch types." Examiner notes the above citation shows historical software patches used to train the classification model inputting work from developers who have downloaded patches used for vulnerabilities. This shows potential links to the machine learning model) . Regarding claim 12, Sun as modified teaches claim 11 as cited above and teaches: wherein the model utilizes selected relevant text extracted from the descriptive text of the potential solving support document with the detected support document identifier removed (Para. [34], Sun shows "Software patches may typically include not only the lines of code that will be added and/or removed but also neighboring lines of the code adjacent to the area of the patch within the software. These neighboring lines of code may precede the area of the code being added and/or deleted in the patch and/or be after the area of the code being added and/or deleted in the patch. For example, a software patch may contain six neighboring code lines (e.g., three lines or code preceding the changes and three lines of code following the changes proposed by the software patch, such as line 4-6 and 8-10 in Listing 2). These neighboring lines of code may be provided as context for each code revision. While the example above suggests six lines of code, this is for example purposes only as fewer or greater than six lines of neighboring code may be provided with the software patch. In some examples, these context statements provided by the neighboring code may not provide sufficient semantics to understand the function or operation of the software patch. However, to perform code analysis on an OSS patch, the source code may be retrieved showing the code both before “pre-patch” and after “post-patch” applying the software patch. For example, a software patch may be considered as a security patch when a vulnerability exists in the pre-patch code and the corresponding fix statement(s) are in the post-patch code. In certain examples, security patches may comprise sanity checks, which are security checks on critical values like bound, permission, etc. For example, for the software patch to fix use-after-free and double-free vulnerabilities, sanity checks may be the added conditional statements to check the availability of pointers or memory." Examiner notes the citation above shows software patches undergoing code analysis through extracting relevant changed code lines and expanding the range of the extracted code lines for additional context. The software identifier would not be available within revised code statements) . Regarding claim 13, Sun as modified teaches claim 12 as cited above and teaches: wherein classifications are used as feedback to adjust and improve the model (Para. [74], Sun shows "The extracted features (e.g., one or more candidate multimodal features) may be combined in the one or more machine-learning-based prediction models 440A-440N that are trained using a machine-learning approach such as discriminant analysis; decision tree; a nearest neighbor (NN) algorithm (e.g., k-NN models, replicator NN models, etc.); statistical algorithm (e.g., Bayesian networks, etc.); clustering algorithm (e.g., k-means, mean-shift, etc.); neural networks (e.g., reservoir networks, artificial neural networks, etc.); support vector machines (SVMs); logistic regression algorithms; linear regression algorithms; Markov models or chains; principal component analysis (PCA) (e.g., for linear models); multi-layer perceptron (MLP) ANNs (e.g., for non-linear models); replicating reservoir networks (e.g., for non-linear models, typically for time series); random forest classification; a combination thereof and/or the like. The resulting prediction model 430 may comprise a decision rule or a mapping for each candidate multimodal feature in order to determine a predicted software patch type based on the patchCPG 228 created based on the software patch). As described further herein, the resulting prediction model 430 may be used to determine or predict whether a software patch is a security software patch or a non-security software patch based on the patchCPG 228 generated based on the particular software patch." Examiner notes the above citation shows a machine learning model using various classification techniques on a dataset in order to train and improve model functionality) . With regards to claim 14, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1, 6, and 7 above. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above. Regarding claim 17, Sun as modified teaches claim 14 as cited above and teaches: wherein the machine learning analysis is performed by a model trained with potential links classified by developers (Para. [76-77], Sun shows "the training method 500 may determine (e.g., access, receive, retrieve, etc.) first historical software patches, associated patchCPGs 228 generated based on those software patches, and identifiers of the type of each software patch (e.g., a security software patch or a non-security software patch) (e.g., the first portion of the historical software patches described above) and second historical software patches, associated patchCPGs 228 generated based on those software patches, and the identifier of the type of software patch for each software patch (e.g., the second portion of the historical software patches described above). The first historical software patches and the second historical software patches may each comprise one or more multimodal features and a predetermined software patch type based on the patchCPG 228 generated based on the software patch and associated source code for the software. The training method 500 may determine (e.g., extract, select, etc.), at 530, one or more features that can be used by, for example, a classifier to differentiate among different classifications (e.g., software patch types). The one or more features may comprise a set of multimodal features. As an example, the training method 500 may determine a set features from the first historical software patches and associated patchCPGs 228 and software patch types." Examiner notes the above citation shows historical software patches used to train the classification model inputting work from developers who have downloaded patches used for vulnerabilities. This shows potential links to the machine learning model) and the model utilizes selected relevant text extracted from the descriptive text of the potential solving support document with a detected support document identifier removed (Para. [34], Sun shows "Software patches may typically include not only the lines of code that will be added and/or removed but also neighboring lines of the code adjacent to the area of the patch within the software. These neighboring lines of code may precede the area of the code being added and/or deleted in the patch and/or be after the area of the code being added and/or deleted in the patch. For example, a software patch may contain six neighboring code lines (e.g., three lines or code preceding the changes and three lines of code following the changes proposed by the software patch, such as line 4-6 and 8-10 in Listing 2). These neighboring lines of code may be provided as context for each code revision. While the example above suggests six lines of code, this is for example purposes only as fewer or greater than six lines of neighboring code may be provided with the software patch. In some examples, these context statements provided by the neighboring code may not provide sufficient semantics to understand the function or operation of the software patch. However, to perform code analysis on an OSS patch, the source code may be retrieved showing the code both before “pre-patch” and after “post-patch” applying the software patch. For example, a software patch may be considered as a security patch when a vulnerability exists in the pre-patch code and the corresponding fix statement(s) are in the post-patch code. In certain examples, security patches may comprise sanity checks, which are security checks on critical values like bound, permission, etc. For example, for the software patch to fix use-after-free and double-free vulnerabilities, sanity checks may be the added conditional statements to check the availability of pointers or memory." Examiner notes the citation above shows software patches undergoing code analysis through extracting relevant changed code lines and expanding the range of the extracted code lines for additional context. The software identifier would not be available within revised code statements) . With regards to claim 20, it is a computer readable media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 17 above. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 17 above. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US 20240411886 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Sun) and US 20230229547 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Agarwal) in further view of US 20220121846 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Bolgarin), US 20200057858 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Sharma) and US 12164671 B1 (Hereinafter referred to as Chen). Regarding claim 8, Sun as modified teaches claim 7 as cited above and teaches: wherein the support document link data store further stores software component identifiers (Para. [38], Sun shows "a target software patch may be received. For example, the target software patch may be received from a local or remote database and/or from the software developer for the software associated with the target software patch. At 204, the pre-patch source code 206 and the post-patch source code 208 are retrieved. For example, the pre-patch source code 206 and the post-patch source code 208 may be retrieved based on the received target software patch. Though the target patch contains multiple lines of context code (e.g., three lines ahead and behind the changed code snippet), critical context related to the target software patch and outside the range of the context code may be missed. Accordingly, the computing device may retrieve the files of full source code before and after applying the patch. Thus, we can obtain the source code files of both pre-patch and post-patch versions. To retrieve the related files in pre-patch 206 and post-patch 208 versions, we implement a parser to analyze the target software patch 202. For example, the target software patch 202 may comprise a software identifier that identifies the software to which the target patch is to be applied. For example, each target patch can be uniquely identified by a commit ID (e.g., a 20-byte SHA-1 hash). For example, the computing device may retrieve and/or receive the pre-patch source code 206 and the post-patch source code based on the software identifier.") Sun as modified does not disclose: wherein the support document link data store further stores support document author identifiers, and reviewing developer identifiers. However, in the analogous art of data cleansing and management, Chen teaches: wherein the support document link data store further stores support document author identifiers, and reviewing developer identifiers (Col. [21-22] lines [50-2], Chen shows " Extended subject certification table 920 can also be used to maintain information regarding the change proposal review process (e.g., for audit trail purposes). Such information can include a reviewer identifier for the given change proposal (e.g., as might be maintained as reviewer identifier 978) and the date on which the change proposal was reviewed (e.g., as might be maintained as review date 979). As can be seen, a user identifier for the user submitting a change proposal can be used to track such change proposals (e.g., as by the correspondence between a user identifier such as user identifier 946 and a creator identifier such as creator identifier 972). Similarly, a user identifier for the user reviewing and approving/denying change proposals can be used to track such and approval/denial (e.g., as by the correspondence between a user identifier such as user identifier 946 and a reviewer identifier such as reviewer identifier 972)." Examiner notes the citation above shows a table of data containing author and review identifiers) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen into the teachings of Sun as modified to implement “ wherein the support document link data store further stores software component identifiers, support document author identifiers, and reviewing developer identifiers”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated as it allows for the tracking of interactions for purposes of audit trail generation (Chen, Col. [19] lines [51-52]). Claim(s) 9-10 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of US 20240411886 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Sun) and US 20230229547 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Agarwal) in further view of US 20220121846 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Bolgarin), US 20200057858 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Sharma) and US 20160092209 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Kuchibholta). Regarding claim 9, Sun as modified teaches claim 7 as cited above, but does not disclose: wherein the supporting document link data store is used to automatically suggest a related support document patch to a customer. However, in the analogous art of detection of faulty components, Agarwal teaches: wherein the supporting document link data store is used (Para. [40], Agarwal shows "The analytics service 102 can also provide a query service 114 that can subsequently look up an error identifier associated with a located error, and can provide troubleshooting analysis, visualizations, and recommendations, aiding real-time forensic investigations or historical analysis, as described in the examples of FIGS. 8A and 8B below") In addition, in the analogous art of version management, Kuchibholta teaches: automatically suggest a related support document patch to a customer (Para. [175], Kuchibholta shows "For example, the notification may indicate whether the target has too many patches, too few patches, or whether an incompatible patch exists. If a target has one or more additional drift patches, drift manager 152 may provide patch information identifying the drift patches applied at the rogue target. If the target is missing one or more patches, then the notification may identify which patches the target is lacking.") . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kuchibholta into the teachings of Sun as modified to implement “ wherein the supporting document link data store is used to automatically suggest a related support document patch to a customer ”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to identify which patches the target is missing (Kuchibholta, Para. [175]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Agarwal into the teachings of Sun as modified to implement ". The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated Regarding claim 10, Sun as modified teaches claim 7 as cited above, but does not disclose: wherein the supporting document link data store is used to automatically review a customer's installed support document patches and generate alerts indicating missing patches. However, in the analogous art of detection of faulty components, Agarwal teaches: wherein the supporting document link data store is used (Para. [40], Agarwal shows "The analytics service 102 can also provide a query service 114 that can subsequently look up an error identifier associated with a located error, and can provide troubleshooting analysis, visualizations, and recommendations, aiding real-time forensic investigations or historical analysis, as described in the examples of FIGS. 8A and 8B below") In addition, in the analogous art of version management, Kuchibholta teaches: to automatically review a customer's installed support document patches and generate alerts indicating missing patches. (Para. [175], Kuchibholta shows "For example, the notification may indicate whether the target has too many patches, too few patches, or whether an incompatible patch exists. If a target has one or more additional drift patches, drift manager 152 may provide patch information identifying the drift patches applied at the rogue target. If the target is missing one or more patches, then the notification may identify which patches the target is lacking.") . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kuchibholta into the teachings of Sun as modified to implement “ wherein the supporting document link data store is used to automatically review a customer's installed support document patches and generate alerts indicating missing patches ”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to notify the user of which patches they are missing or have incompatible patches conflicting with (Kuchibholta, Para. [175]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Agarwal into the teachings of Sun as modified to implement . The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated With regards to claim 15, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 9 above. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 9 above. With regards to claim 16, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 10 above. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 10 above. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20250292262 A1 – This prior art teaches finding support documents for user needs US 20230068230 A1 – This prior art teaches finding troubleshooting documentation with solutions for user issues by analyzing logs Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEERICK A MALIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8110. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 7-5. 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, Chat Do can be reached at (571) 272-3721. 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. /Z.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2193 /Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 2 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 3 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 4 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 5 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 7 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 8 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 9 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 10 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 11 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 12 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 13 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 14 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 16 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 17 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 18 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 19 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 20 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 21 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 22 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 23 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 24 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 25 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 26 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 27 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 28 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 29 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 30 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 31 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 32 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 33 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 34 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 35 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 36 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 37 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 38 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 39 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 40 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 41 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 42 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 43 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 44 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 45 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 46 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 47 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 48 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 49 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 50 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/760,167 Page 51 Art Unit: 2193
Prosecution Insights