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 response to application filed on 23 of February 2026.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10-12, 14, 18, 19, and 23-25.
Claims 2-4, 9, 13, 15-17, 22, and 26 have been cancelled.
Claims 27-36 have been added.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10-12, 14, 18-21, 23-25, and 27-36 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Amendment/Argument
35 USC § 101
The applicant asserts that as amended, claims 1 and 14 are directed to automated control of incident-response communications in a distributed computing environment, specifically for active technical incidents affecting production computing systems. The claimed invention does not merely recommend personnel or analyze text; instead, it automatically initiates network communication sessions that connect computing devices in response to detected technical incidents. These elements place the claims squarely within the category of patent-eligible systems that improve or control computer-network operations, rather than abstract human organization or mathematical concepts. Much like Enfish, the independent claims at least improve a computer itself and provide an improvement in the existing technological field of automated control of incident-response communications in a distributed computing environment for active technical incidents affecting production systems. Further, the applicant asserts that similar to SRI International, the amended claims here do not merely analyze text or similarity scores. Instead, they use vector-based analysis as an intermediate mechanism to automatically control network communication behavior, namely by opening conference bridges or live messaging sessions to remediate technical system failures. As in SRI, the claims recite a concrete technological improvement, not an abstract mechanism for organizing human activity. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The Federal Circuit has held that claims directed to "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 1 recites comparing gathered information to historical information (vectors) and generate a similarity score between these vectors in order to identify an incident response team also based historical information and connecting tea members virtually via a network. "A process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible." See Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (The court held that claims directed to selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis, set forth an abstract concept.); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding abstract claims "directed to ... collecting, displaying, and manipulating data"); In re Downing, 754 F. App'x 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("This court has consistently treated inventions directed to collecting, analyzing, and displaying information as abstract ideas."); In re Rudy, 956 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ("We have held in the computer context that 'collecting information' and 'analyzing' that information are within the realm of abstract ideas."); Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1366 -1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Claim for standardizing data to be conveyed to a bedside device for graphical display was directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and displaying data."). Likewise, the process of claim 1 employs mathematical algorithms (the trained natural language processing model) to manipulate collected information to risk levels based on historical data. The focus of the claim is not on any improved computer, but the improved mathematical analysis; and "merely calling for a mathematical concept to be performed more efficiently or with a particular input does not amount to an application of the mathematical concept that is patent-eligible. In re Gitlin, 775 F. App'x 689, 691 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (non-precedential). In order "to be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself." Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336-1339). In Enfish, the court distinguished between claims that focus on a specific improvement in computer capabilities, on the one hand, and an abstract idea that merely implements computers as tools, on the other. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. Contrary to applicant’s argument, this case is unlike Enfish. In contrast to Enfish, claims 1 and 14 do no more than use instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components. See Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ("But the need to perform tasks automatically is not a unique technical problem."); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[S]electing certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis" is abstract); In re Gale, 85 6 F. App 'x 887, 889 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("We also disagree with Mr. Gale's argument that his claims are not abstract simply because they include measurements that are 'fed into a computer that repeatedly recalculates [an output]."') (citation omitted). Accordingly, the examiner determines that claims 1 and 14, when considered as a whole, lacks additional elements sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant asserts that the claimed multidimensional vectors and similarity thresholds are not claimed as an end in themselves. They function as control signals that determine whether and how the system automatically initiates network communications. This use of mathematical processing as part of a technical control loop places the claims squarely within the scope of Thales and McRO. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the court explained that the claims in the '576 and '278 patents were directed to an improvement in computer animation, and not merely an abstract concept. Unlike other cases where computer automation of existing methods was deemed an abstract idea, the patented claims in McRO included steps that were not carried out in the same way as prior art methods. The court noted that the "incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that 'improved the existing technological process.'" The claims also did not preempt all rules-based animation techniques, but were limited to a particular configuration of rule sets. 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.
The applicant asserts that as in BASCOM, the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of elements in claims 1 and 14--i.e., live incident ingestion, vector-based relevance determination, threshold-gated team selection, and automatic establishment of network communication channels-produces a technical effect (faster remediation of production system failures) that is neither routine nor conventional. The claims therefore recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1 and 14 provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner must consider whether there are specific limitations or elements recited in the claims “that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present” or whether the claim “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56 (footnote omitted). The examiner must also consider whether the combination of steps perform “in an unconventional way and therefore include an ‘inventive step, ’ rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B ” Id. In this part of the analysis, the examiner considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine “whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. As discussed above, there is no evidence in the record that the steps performed by the claims, are accomplished in a non-conventional way.
Allowable Subject Matter
None of the cited art documented by the Examiner, taken individually or in combination, discloses or suggests the features in claims 1 and 14 nor could a person skilled in the art easily conceive of such features even in the light of common technical knowledge at the time of filing. Therefore, pending claims 1, 5-8, 10-12, 14, 18-21, 23-25, and 27-36 are distinguished from the prior arts cited by the Examiner.
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 27-36 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 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, and a requested incident response team; 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; and automatically establish an incident response communication channel by opening a network communication session and connecting the remote computing device to computing devices of team members on a selected one of the proposed incident response teams, thereby enabling real-time coordination 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 27-36 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.
Dependent claims 8 and 21 recite the additional element “user interface”. This is a generic computer component 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. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1, 8, 14, and 21 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 5-7, 10-12, 14, 18-20, 23-25, and 27-36 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 (Rob) Wu can be reached on (571)272-7761. 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).
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 5/4/2026
Prosecution Insights