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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The language of the claim raises a question as to whether the claim is directed merely to an abstract idea that is not tied to a technological art, environment or machine which would result in a practical application producing a concrete, useful, and tangible result to form the basis of statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13 recites a computer program product embodied on a computer readable medium, the computer readable medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions which, when executed by a processor. Claim language does not comply with the requirements of MPEP 2106.01.I. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media. Transitory signal does not fall within a statutory category since it is clearly not a series of steps or acts to constitute a process, not a mechanical device or combination of mechanical devices to constitute a machine, not a tangible physical article or object which is some form of matter to be a product and constitute a manufacture, and not a composition of two or more substances to constitute a composition of matter.
Note that a claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
Since claims 14-18 are dependent claims, these claims are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nadig at el. (US Patent No. US 11334712 B1).
Regarding claim 1, with respect to Figures 1-7, Nadig teaches a method, comprising:
operating an automation that was implemented based upon natural language processing, wherein a history of execution of sets of actions [i.e., executed steps] is maintained along with corresponding facts for each action [i.e., step] of the automation (abstract; fig. 1, steps 150, 156, fig.6; col. 3, lines 41-60, col.5, lines 30-39, 66-67, col.6, lines 1-5);
at a given step, analyzing a recorded fact against the facts that were recorded for the history executed steps for the automation (abstract; fig. 1, step 150, fig.6; col. 3, lines 41-60, col.5, lines 30-39, 66-67, col.6, lines 1-5); and
performing anomaly analysis on the recorded fact (fig. 1, step 150, fig.6; col. 3, lines 41-60, col.5, lines 30-39, 66-67, col.6, lines 1-5).
Regarding claims 3, 9 and 15, Nadig teaches wherein database/storage [i.e., database] is maintained to track the history of the executed steps and any corresponding facts (fig.3, 4; col. 9, lines 10-40, 64-67, col.10, lines 1-28, col.12, lines 7-18, 60-65, col.13, lines 17-57).
Regarding claims 4, 10 and 16, Nadig teaches wherein results from performing the anomaly analysis are presented to a user (abstract; fig.1, 3; col.6, lines 6-24).
Regarding claim 6, 12 and 18, Nadig teaches wherein the history of the executed steps comprises a learned procedure (fig.3, 4; col. 12, lines 7-18: “The training data storage 320 may include data used to train one or more machine learning models”, col.12, line 66-col.13, line 16: “The types of data stored in the training data storage 320 may be the same as the types of data stored in the execution history storage 330”).
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Nadig teaches system, comprising:
a processor (col.21, lines 39-41);
a memory for holding programmable code (col.21, lines 39-57); and
wherein the programmable code includes instructions for operating an automation (col.21, lines 39-67).
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Nadig teaches computer program product embodied on a computer readable medium, the computer readable medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions which, when executed by a processor (col.23, lines 41-55)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadig at el. (US Patent No. US 11334712 B1) in view of Liguori et al. (US Patent No. US 12524214 B1).
Regarding claims 2, 8 and 14, Nadig teaches wherein a natural language processing system is used to perform the anomaly analysis by generating a determination that includes the recorded fact along with data from the facts that were recorded for the history executed steps for the automation (col.3, lines 41-60, col.5, lines 30-39, 66-67, col.6, lines 1-5). However, Nadig does not specifically teach wherein an LLM is used to perform the anomaly analysis by generating a prompt that includes the recorded fact along with data from the facts. Liguori teaches wherein an LLM is used to perform the anomaly analysis by generating a prompt that includes the recorded fact along with data from the facts (abstract; col.27, lines 13-39, col.28, lines 62-67, col.29, lines 1-14). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nadig to incorporate the feature of wherein an LLM is used to perform the anomaly analysis by generating a prompt that includes the recorded fact along with data from the facts in Nadig’s invention as taught by Liguori. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to generate a suggested resolution to a cause of the error message efficiently.
Claims 5, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadig at el. (US Patent No. US 11334712 B1) in view of Wu et al. (US Pub. No. US 20210141863 A1).
Regarding claims 5, 11 and 17, Nadig teaches wherein a natural language representation of the automation (col. 3, lines 41-60, col.5, lines 30-39, 66-67, col.6, lines 1-5). However, Nadig does not specifically teach wherein a natural language representation corresponds to one or more ASTs. Wu teaches wherein a natural language representation corresponds to one or more ASTs (paragraph 0128). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nadig to incorporate the feature of wherein a natural language representation corresponds to one or more ASTs in Nadig’s invention as taught by Wu. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to efficiently compare two different vectors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD S ELAHEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7536. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:30AM to 5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAN TSANG can be reached on 571-272-7547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MD S ELAHEE/
MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2694
January 20, 2026