Detailed Action
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 .
Status of Claim
This action is in reply to the action filed on 6 of August 2026.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 14, 18, 23, 24, 29-31, and 34-36 have been amended.
Claims 37 and 38 have been added.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10-12, 14, 18-21, 23-25, and 27-38 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Argument
35 USC § 101
The applicant asserts that the first multidimensional feature vector, the historical vectors, and the similarity scores generated by claim 1 are never output, displayed, reported, or otherwise presented to any person. They are generated and consumed entirely within the server computing device as an internal control signal that determines a single thing: which team-member computing devices the server will contact. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Mere automation of a manual process or claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See MPEP 2106.04(a); MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.05(f); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Applicant asserts that the common thread in each of the decisions relied upon by the Office Action is that the claimed process terminates in the presentation of an analytical result to a human-a displayed visualization (Electric Power Group), a reported risk score (SAP/InvestPic), a standardized value conveyed to a bedside display (University of Florida), or collected and displayed data generally (Capital One, Downing, Rudy). That is precisely the feature absent from claims 1 and 14. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The independent claims disclose “the opening of a default incident response conference bridge”. ¶31 of the instant application’s specification discloses “connecting the remote computing device to computing devices of team members on one of the proposed incident response teams comprises opening a conference bridge as the incident response communication channel and automatically connecting the remote computing device and each of the team member computing devices to the conference bridge. In some embodiments, the conference bridge enables the remote computing device and each of the team member computing devices to communicate via audio and/or video”. It is evident that the output is the establishment of a communication channel for remote workers where their devices, used merely as a tool, establishes said communications via a network. Later, the claims disclose the initiation of an outbound connection between the workers’ devices and upon receiving successful-receipt indications from the said devices, it joins the established conference bridge. ¶84 discloses that “device connection module 108 d joins each of the respective devices 102, 116 a-116 n to the conference bridge so that the participants can discuss technical and operation details of the IT incident along with strategies for addressing the incident”. Considered as an ordered combination, the generic computer components of applicant’s claimed invention add nothing that is not already present when the limitations are considered separately. For example, claim 1 does not purport to improve the functioning of the computer components themselves. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, claim 1 amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using generic computer components performing routine computer functions. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26.
The applicant once again asserts that the amended claims do not merely instruct a generic computer to ''assemble a team," as the Office Action characterizes them; they recite a particular, ordered configuration of steps-opening a def a ult conference bridge before team identification is complete, transmitting bridge connection information to the remote computing device while identification continues, retrieving device contact identifiers from a database, initiating outbound connection requests using those identifiers, receiving successful-receipt indications, and only then joining the resulting devices to the bridge-that is not simply ''the use of a computer'' to do what a human already does, but a specific rule-governed sequence that determines, automatically and without human involvement, which machines are connected to which other machines and when. As in McRO, it is the incorporation of this particular ordered sequence, not the generic invocation of a computer, that produces the result. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike McRO, the amended claims are aimed at comparing technical incidents to historical ones and establishing a team based on their historical incident tickets being similar to the current incident and establishing a communication channel via a network. Assembly a team based on prior experience can be devised by a human with the aid of pen and paper. That level of communication and coordination to establish a team also falls under managing human behavior which is also an abstract idea. The claims don’t disclose how the computer performs said steps, the specification paragraphs associated with Figs. 3-5 clearly show the computer being used as tool where users identify team members who should respond to the incident ticket, and a “bridge” telephone is provided to participating team members. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2025), and cited by PTAB Appeal 2025-003304, ruling that: “The requirements that the machine learning model be ‘iteratively trained’ or dynamically adjusted based on real time changes do not represent a technological improvement” at least because they are “incident to the very nature of machine learning”. (PTAB non-precedential).
The applicant asserts that the examiner’s own conclusion that no prior art reference-nor any combination of the cited references---discloses or renders obvious the claimed ordered combination is itself evidence that the combination was not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field as of the filing date. The examiner respectfully disagrees. However, our reviewing court guides that "[ e ]ligibility and novelty are separate inquiries." Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc 'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1340 (Fed Cir. 2017); see also Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that "[ e ]ven assuming" that a particular claimed feature was novel does not "avoid the problem of abstractness"). "The 'novelty' of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188- 89 (1981); see also Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ("[E]ven if the idea is novel and non-obvious [it] is not enough to save it from ineligibility."). Moreover, "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea." Synopsys Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F .3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As noted in MPEP 2106.07(a)(III), there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10-12, 14, 18-21, 23-25, and 27-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). See MPEP 2106.03(II).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 1 recites “a system for automated engagement of technical incident response teams using artificial intelligence, the system comprising a server computing device having a memory for storing computer-executable instructions and a processor that executes the computer-executable instructions to: receive an incident response request from a remote computing device, the request including a corpus of unstructured computer text describing an active technical incident affecting a production computing system or network service, a requested incident response team, and an indication that incident-response communication is required for the active technical incident; responsive to the indication that incident-response communication is required, open a default incident response conference bridge for the active technical incident and transmit connection information for the default incident response conference bridge to the remote computing device while the server computing device identifies response team members for the active technical incident; convert the corpus of unstructured computer text into a first multidimensional feature vector using a trained natural language processing model; compare the first vector to a plurality of historical vectors generated from incident descriptions contained in historical incident tickets, each historical incident ticket corresponding to a prior technical incident and having an assigned incident response team; generate a similarity score for each of the historical incident tickets based upon a vector similarity measure; identify one or more proposed incident response teams using the assigned incident response teams from the historical incident tickets that have a similarity score that satisfies a threshold defining operational relevance to the active technical incident; retrieve, from a database, device contact identifiers for computing devices of team members on the selected incident response team, the device contact identifiers including at least one phone number or network address; initiate outbound connection requests to the computing devices of the team members using the retrieved device contact identifiers; and responsive to receiving successful-receipt indications from the computing devices of the team members, join the computing devices of the team members to the default incident response conference bridge, thereby enabling real-time coordination over the default incident response conference bridge to remediate the active technical incident”. Claim 14 discloses similar limitations as Claim 1 and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1 and 14 are directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” in particular “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions”, “Mental Processes” in particular “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” and “Mathematical Concepts” in particular “mathematical calculations” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5-8, 10-12, 18-21, 23-25, and 27-38 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 1 and 14 recite additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claim 1 and 14 recite additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Further, the remaining additional element(s) italicized above reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1 and 14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements described above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least in ¶88, 95 “The computer program can be deployed in a cloud computing environment (e.g., Amazon AWS, Microsoft Azure, IBM Cloud). A cloud computing environment includes a collection of computing resources provided as a service to one or more remote computing devices that connect to the cloud computing environment via a service account which allows access to the aforementioned computing resources. Cloud applications use various resources that are distributed within the cloud computing environment, across availability zones, and/or across multiple computing environments or data centers. Cloud applications are hosted as a service and use transitory, temporary, and/or persistent storage to store their data. These applications leverage cloud infrastructure that eliminates the need for continuous monitoring of computing infrastructure by the application developers, such as provisioning servers, clusters, virtual machines, storage devices, and/or network resources. Instead, developers use resources in the cloud computing environment to build and run the application and store relevant data. Devices of the computing system can include, for example, a computer, a computer with a browser device, a telephone, an IP phone, a mobile device (e.g., cellular phone, personal digital assistant (PDA) device, smartphone, tablet, laptop computer, electronic mail device), and/or other communication devices. The browser device includes, for example, a computer (e.g., desktop computer and/or laptop computer) with a World Wide Web browser (e.g., Chrome from Google, Inc., Safari from Apple, Inc., Microsoft Edge from Microsoft Corporation, and/or Mozilla Firefox from Mozilla Corporation). Mobile computing devices include, for example, an iPhone from Apple Corporation, and/or an Android?-based device. IP phones include, for example, a Cisco Unified IP Phone 7985G and/or a Cisco Unified Wireless Phone 7920 available from Cisco Systems, Inc.”.
Claims 5-8, 10-12, 18-21, 23-25, and 27-38 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrate under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571)272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form.
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 09/18/2026
Prosecution Insights