DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to RCE filed on 24 March 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending. The 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 1-20 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 1-8 are directed to an apparatus/system, claims 9-15 are directed to a method/process, and claims 16-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 1-8
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Independent claim 1, recites the limitations “generate a risk assessment matrix with a first element representative of the computer-implemented processes and a second element representative of a level of interdependence between the computer-implemented processes” (Mental Process), “determine a list of corrective actions for a current event based on the rules and the current event” (Mental Process), “determine a break risk assessment value for the current event based on correlation to known possible causes of the current event” (Mental Process), “determine a fix risk assessment value based on an interdependency risk pattern in the risk assessment matrix” (Mental Process), “update, for the corrective actions in the list of the corrective actions, the risk assessment matrix with a break risk assessment value and a fix assessment value” (Mental Process), “generate, based on the risk assessment matrix, a response strategy comprising a set of one or more remedial actions from the list of the corrective actions” (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 making generating a matrix, determining a list, updating the matrix, and generating a set of remedial actions, thereby describing an observation, evaluation, and/or opinion of data. Such an observation, evaluation, and/or opinion of data can be performed by a human in the mind or with pencil and paper and recite 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 2-8 cite further details pertaining to “generate a risk assessment matrix…”, “determine a list…”, “update, …, the risk assessment matrix…” and “generate,…, a set of one or more remedial actions…”, specified in claim 1; and additionally, “identify interdependency risk patterns that indicate risks related to each corrective action in a runbook and an effect of applying each corrective action on a computer-implemented process associated with the current event in the networked environment, wherein the runbook comprises the list of corrective actions” (Mental Process), “assigns at least one of the fix risk assessment values to each of the corrective actions” (Mental Process), “assign an interdependency rating to each corrective action in the list of corrective actions, wherein the interdependency rating quantifies a level of interdependence of a computer-implemented process associated with the current event on other of the computer-implemented processes potentially affected by application of each of the corrective action in the list of the corrective actions;” (Mental process), “populate the risk assessment matrix with the assigned interdependency rating of each corrective action;” (Mental Process), “evaluate the risk assessment matrix, based on the assigned interdependency rating of each corrective action to one another.” (Mental Process), “after an evaluation of the risk assessment matrix, flag a respective corrective action from the list of the corrective actions as a remedial action for use in the response strategy.” (Mental Process), “generate additional break risk assessment values and additional fix risk assessment values for the successive process break flags;” (Mental Process), “populate a copy of the risk assessment matrix using the additional break risk assessment values and the additional fix risk assessment values to produce a revised risk assessment matrix;” (Mental Process), “analyze the break risk assessment values and the fix risk assessment values of the previous process break flags in the revised risk assessment matrix with reference to the additional break risk assessment values and the additional fix risk assessment values of the successive process break flags in the revised risk assessment matrix;” (Mental Process) and “update, based on results of analyzing of the additional break risk assessment values and the additional fix risk assessment values of the successive process break flags and the break risk assessment values and the fix risk assessment values of the previous process break flags, a runbook to identify a corresponding corrective action in the list of the corrective actions for implementing the corresponding corrective action to fix a potential operational breakdown.” (Mental Process). 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.
In claims 2-8, 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 2-8 each recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 1 indicates the apparatus contains “a memory storing code and rules to a correlate break events with fix events”, “a processor to execute the programming code to cause the processor to”, “a networked environment”, “computer-implemented processes”. Even if the described apparatus is implemented on a computer, there is no indication that the combination of elements in the claim solves any particular technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing computer technology in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exceptions. 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). The computer system cited in the claim is described at a high level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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 further recites the limitation “a processor to execute the programming code to cause the processor to”, “execute a rules engine”, “for a networked environment with computer-implemented processes”. Using the words “apply it”, or an equivalent (i.e., “performing”, “configured”, “execute”, “cause”, etc.), are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, thus amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to generically applying a resolution to an identified problem, respectively, without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “programming code and rules to correlate break events with fix events”. These limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity of 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 1 further recites the limitation “automatically apply one or more remedial actions of the response strategy to address the current event”. Using the words “apply it”, or an equivalent (i.e., “performing”, “configured”, etc.), are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, thus amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to generically applying a resolution to an identified problem, respectively, without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Claims 3-4 recite “wherein the break risk assessment values indicate a likelihood of occurrence of a potential operational breakdown of the computer process in a network and the processor assigns at least one of the fix risk assessment values to each of the corrective actions” and “the break risk assessment value has a range from a high likelihood value indicating the potential operational breakdown has a high likelihood of occurring to a low likelihood value indicating the potential operational breakdown has a low likelihood of occurring; and the fix risk assessment value assigned to each of the corrective actions has a range from a value indicating the potential operational breakdown has a high likelihood of being fixed to a different value indicating the potential operation breakdown has a low likelihood of being fixed by the respective corrective action”. These limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity of 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 7 recites “apply the flagged respective corrective action to a computer process associated with the current event.”. Using the words “apply it”, or an equivalent (i.e., “performing”, “configured”, etc.), are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, thus amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to generically applying a resolution to an identified problem, respectively, without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Claim 8 recites “receive successive process break flags that follow previous process break flags from a monitoring circuit; generate additional break risk assessment values and additional fix risk assessment values for the successive process break flags;”. These limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Claims 2-10 describe further details regarding the populate and generate. These claims contain no additional elements which would 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 apparatus, memory, and processor recited in the claim describe a generic computer processor and/or computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites “automatically apply one or more remedial actions of the response strategy to address the current event” describe insignificant extra-solution activity and are written at a high level in a generic manner without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. Therefore, these limitations recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas defined in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “apply the flagged respective action to a computer process associated with the current event” describe insignificant extra-solution activity and are written at a high level in a generic manner without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. Therefore, these limitations recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas defined in the claim.
Conclusion
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 1-8 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 1-8 are therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 9-15
Claims 9-15, contain limitations for a method which are similar to the limitations for the apparatus/system specified in claims 1-8. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1, Step 2A – Prong 2, and Step 2B for claims 9-15 is similar to that presented above for claims 1-9.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 9-15
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited
Claims 9-15 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether a Judicial exception is recited.
Claim 12 recites additional limitations “assigning the break risk assessment value indicating a likelihood of occurrence of a potential operational breakdown of the computer process;” (mental process), “assigning a respective fix risk assessment value to each of the corrective actions;” (mental process) and “populating the risk assessment matrix with the assigned break risk assessment value of the computer process and the assigned fix risk assessment value to each of the corrective actions.” (mental process). 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 9.
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 9-15 each recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claims 9-15 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
Claim 15 additionally recites “wherein the interdependency rating assigned to each corrective action quantifies a level of interdependence of each respective individual computer process affected by the application of each of corrective action in the list of the corrective actions.”. These limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity of 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.
Claims 9-15 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea.
Claims 9-15 recites the additional elements of “a computer-implemented process”. The computer 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 processors 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 9-15 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 9-15 are therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 16-20
Claims 16-20, contains limitations for a non-transitory computer-readable medium which are similar to the limitations for the methods specified in claim 1-8. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1, Step 2A – Prong 2, and Step 2B for claims 16-20 are similar to that presented above for claims 1-8.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 16-20
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited
Claims 16-20 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether a Judicial exception is recited.
Claims 18 and 19 recites additional limitations “assign the break risk assessment value indicating a likelihood of occurrence of potential operational breakdown of the computer process;” (mental process), “assign a fix risk assessment value to each of the corrective actions“ (mental process) and “identify interdependency risk patterns indicative of risks related to each corrective action in a runbook and an effect of applying each corrective on the computer process in a network.“ (mental process). 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 16.
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 16-20 each recite an abstract idea.
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 16-20 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea.
Claims 16-20 recites the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable program code executable by a processor, wherein execution of the computer-readable program code causes the processor to:”. The computer-readable medium and processors 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 on the processors 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 16-20 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). Claim 16-20 is therefore not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, pages 10-17 of remarks, filed 24 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they claims provide a technical solution to address a technical problem. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to an abstract idea of making determinations, updating a matric, generating a strategy with remedial actions. All of these limitations are directed to mental processes, see above rejections. The claims also only cite a generic solution for a generic event, there is no specific remedial action being taking only a generic action for a generic problem. Therefore, these limitations recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas defined in the claim. The claims cite generic “computer-implemented processes” and “networked environment”. 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).
Applicant argues the claims are similar to Enfish. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and does not find the claims analogous to Enfish. Enfish uses the logic table to improve operation. The risk assessment matrix of instant application is used to make a decision, mental process, to provide a list of generic remedial actions. The remedial actions are generic and do not provide a specific solution to a specific problem, thus there is no specific improvement to the system, just the generic remedial action.
Applicant argues the amended claims 1 is directed to an improvement to computer technology. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The remedial actions are generic and do not provide a specific solution to a specific problem, thus there is no specific improvement to the system, just the generic remedial action.
Applicant argues a specific process for automatically applying remedial actions. The specific process is merely an abstract idea of decision making using the values and matrix. The remedial action is generic and not specific, it could be any possible solution to any possible problem that the abstract idea identifies, and thus these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 April 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights