Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite mental processes and mathematics. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims generally link abstract ideas to a generic computer and perform mere data gathering in relation to the mental processes. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they include mere instructions to perform mental processes on a generic computer.
The claimed invention uses a computer algorithm capable of creating solutions to a plethora of problems (GPT), feeds it data, and receives a result of a comparison (Paragraphs 0026-0027 of Applicant’s specification). Analysis of software related errors is typically done by human developers, and the invention aims to automate this known mental process onto a generic computer (Paragraphs 0017-0018 of Applicant’s specification).
Claim 1
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
Claim 1 recites:
processing (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations,” are mental processes), Paragraphs 0043-0045 of Applicant’s specification describe processing as reading information
categorizing (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” are mental processes),
searching (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” are mental processes),
comparing (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” are mental processes),
searching, … a Service Dependency Graph (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” are mental; MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), mathematical relationships are abstract ideas; MPEP 2106.04(a), math that could be practically performed in the human mind is considered a mental process)
and querying (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations,” are mental processes),
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method, comprising (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application):
… by an Intelligent Root Cause Analyzer (IRCA) (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application),
… an error message associated with an impacted application or service resulting from an execution of the impacted application or service (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity; MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi), limiting the data collection and analysis to a particular field of use does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; MPEP 2106.05(h), specifying a field of use or technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application);
… by an Error Categorizer of the IRCA (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application) and as an Error Category, the error message (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity);
… by the IRCA (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application), for a code change of the impacted application or service that is related to the Error Category and that was deployed prior to a timestamp of the error message (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity);
receiving (MPEP 2106.05(g), mere data gathering is considered insignificant extra-solution activity; MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “using a computer in its ordinary capacity … e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data … does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”), by a Code Repository and Build and Pipeline (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application), an ID of the impacted application or service and a Change Category (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity);
… by the IRCA (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application), the Error Category and the Change Category (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity);
… by a Dependency Reader of the IRCA (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application), … for services that are called by the impacted application or service (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity);
… by the IRCA (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application), a Monitoring system for potentially different error messages and derived Error Categories from the services called by the impacted application or service (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity).
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
The additional elements of the claim do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The claims simply state mental processes with mere instructions to perform these abstract ideas on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)(3)). The computer is cited at such a high level of generality that it cannot be determined to be a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)) and is simply linking the judicial exception to a particular technology (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim recites only the idea of a solution, but fails to recite details as to how the solution to the problem is accomplished, because it leaves a majority of the analysis to the generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites:
wherein an IRCA Error Reader reads the error message and extracts required information (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations,” are mental processes), including error message, time stamp, and application ID or service ID (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity).
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites:
wherein the error message is processed from a Support Ticket or an Alert (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity).
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites:
wherein the Error Categorizer uses generative, pre-trained transformers using large language models (LLMs) (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application) trained for language used in the Support Ticket or the Alert (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity).
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites:
reading, by a Change Reader of the IRCA, code changes resulting from an update of the impacted application or service, wherein the Code Repository and Build and Pipeline reads from a Change and Impact DB which package was deployed to the impacted application or service, which code changes were last built into the package, and the Change Category (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations,” are mental processes; MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity; MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application).
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites:
reporting (MPEP 2106.05(g), the display and output of data is considered insignificant extra-solution activity), by the IRCA (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application), that a match exists between the Error Category and the Change Category (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” are mental processes; MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity).
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites:
if querying, by the IRCA, a Monitoring system returns an error message (MPEP 2106.05(g), the display and output of data is considered insignificant extra-solution activity), categorizing, by the Error Categorizer of the IRCA (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application), the error message as a potentially different Error Category (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” are mental processes).
Claim 8
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
Claim 8 recites:
Limitations identified as abstract ideas have been analyzed with respect to Claim 1. Please see the above rejections for further details.
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
Claim 8 recites:
A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform one or more operations, comprising (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application):
All other limitations identified as additional elements have been analyzed with respect to Claim 1. Please see the above rejections for further details.
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
Please see the above rejection of Claim 1 for the Step 2B analysis.
Claims 9-14
All limitations of Claims 9-14 have been addressed in the analyses of Claim 8 and Claims 2-7, respectively.
Claim 15
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
Claim 15 recites:
Limitations identified as abstract ideas have been analyzed with respect to Claim 1. Please see the above rejections for further details.
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
Claim 15 recites:
A computer-implemented system, comprising: one or more computers; and one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, perform one or more operations, comprising (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application):
All other limitations identified as additional elements have been analyzed with respect to Claim 1. Please see the above rejections for further details.
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
Please see the above rejection of Claim 1 for the Step 2B analysis.
Claims 16-20
All limitations of Claims 16-20 have been addressed in the analyses of Claim 15 and Claims 2-6, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0147832 A1), hereinafter referred to as Agrawal, in view of Saraiya et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0406041 A1), hereinafter referred to as Saraiya.
With regards to Claim 1, Agrawal teaches:
A computer-implemented method, comprising (Paragraph 0144, the method implemented on a computer; Fig. 1B; Paragraphs 0074 and 0152, the software can be implemented in a variety of modules):
processing, by an Intelligent Root Cause Analyzer (IRCA), an error message associated with an impacted application or service (Paragraph 0075) resulting from an execution of the impacted application or service (Paragraphs 0038, 0075, 0081, and 0102; Fig. 5 and 7);
categorizing, by an Error Categorizer of the IRCA and as an Error Category, the error message (Paragraph 0075, type of error; Paragraph 0076, reading the information);
searching, by the IRCA, for a code change of the impacted application or service that is related to the Error Category (Paragraphs 0078-0079) and that was deployed prior to a timestamp of the error message (Paragraphs 0038, 0075, 0081, and 0102; Fig. 5 and 7);
receiving, by a Code Repository and Build and Pipeline, an ID of the impacted application or service (Paragraph 0075) …;
searching, by a Dependency Reader of the IRCA, … for services that are called by the impacted application or service (Paragraph 0038, identify related services);
Saraiya teaches the following limitations not explicitly taught by Agrawal:
… and a Change Category (Paragraphs 0215 and 0117);
comparing, by the IRCA, the Error Category and the Change Category (Paragraphs 0215 and 0117); Paragraph 0049 of Applicant’s specification describes the error category and change category as being compared in order to find a root cause.
a Service Dependency Graph (Paragraphs 0234-0235);
and querying, by the IRCA, a Monitoring system for potentially different error messages and derived Error Categories from the services called by the impacted application or service (Paragraph 0117).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by Agrawal by mapping out the service dependencies in a dependency graph and analyzing the errors of the impacted services in order to determine and fix the potential errors (Saraiya, Paragraphs 0117 and 0235) and by comparing the error category with a change category in order to compare previously known errors to current ones, allowing for better analysis and solutions (Saraiya, Paragraph 0215). Thus, method of Agrawal can be improved to better analyze errors by adding these two components as taught by Saraiya.
With regards to Claim 2, Agrawal in view of Saraiya teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Agrawal in view of Saraiya further teaches:
wherein an IRCA Error Reader reads the error message and extracts required information, including error message, time stamp, and application ID or service ID (Agrawal, Paragraph 0075-0076).
With regards to Claim 3, Agrawal in view of Saraiya teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Agrawal in view of Saraiya further teaches:
wherein the error message is processed from a Support Ticket or an Alert (Agrawal, Paragraph 0075-0076, log). Please Note: The support ticket or alert is being interpreted as any set of information that can satisfy the conditions of the claims, and as is described with respect to Paragraph 0040 of Applicant’s specification.
With regards to Claim 4, Agrawal in view of Saraiya teaches the method of Claim 3 as referenced above. Agrawal in view of Saraiya further teaches:
wherein the Error Categorizer uses generative, pre-trained transformers using large language models (LLMs) trained for language used in the Support Ticket or the Alert (Agrawal, Paragraph 0056, GPT; Paragraph 0071, multiple LLMs). Please note that absent a description of how a generative, pre-trained transformer would utilize a separate model as a part of its training and analyzing processes, Examiner interprets the LLM being used by the generative, pre-trained transformers as the respective transformers themselves.
With regards to Claim 5, Agrawal in view of Saraiya teaches the method of Claim 3 as referenced above. Agrawal in view of Saraiya further teaches:
reading, by a Change Reader of the IRCA, code changes resulting from an update of the impacted application or service (Agrawal, Paragraph 0079 code change from various versions), wherein the Code Repository and Build and Pipeline reads from a Change and Impact DB which package was deployed to the impacted application or service, which code changes were last built into the package (Agrawal, Paragraph 0079, code change; Paragraph 0081, code deployed with documentation and update versions; Paragraph 0075, ran on software package), and the Change Category (Saraiya, Paragraphs 0215 and 0117).
With regards to Claim 6, Agrawal in view of Saraiya teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Agrawal in view of Saraiya further teaches:
reporting, by the IRCA, that a match exists between the Error Category and the Change Category (Saraiya, Paragraph 0215).
With regards to Claim 7, Agrawal in view of Saraiya teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Agrawal in view of Saraiya further teaches:
if querying, by the IRCA, a Monitoring system returns an error message, categorizing, by the Error Categorizer of the IRCA, the error message as a potentially different Error Category (Saraiya, Paragraph 0117, if multiple errors are present in the same area of the dependency graph, they may or may not be related).
With regards to Claim 8, Agrawal teaches:
A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform one or more operations, comprising (Paragraph 0144):
Agrawal in view of Saraiya teaches the remaining limitations of Claim 8. Please see the above rejection of Claim 1 for citations of these limitations, as well as the motivation to combine references in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 103.
Agrawal in view of Saraiya teaches the limitations of Claims 9-14. Please see the above rejections of Claims 2-7 for citations of these limitations.
With regards to Claim 15, Agrawal teaches:
A computer-implemented system, comprising: one or more computers; and one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers, perform one or more operations, comprising (Paragraphs 0144 and 0148):
Agrawal in view of Saraiya teaches the remaining limitations of Claim 15. Please see the above rejection of Claim 1 for citations of these limitations, as well as the motivation to combine references in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 103.
Agrawal in view of Saraiya teaches the limitations of Claims 16-20. Please see the above rejections of Claims 2-6 for citations of these limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 12th, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the invention is an improvement to a technical process, but in the arguments, as well as in Paragraphs 0017-0018 of the specification, Applicant describes how the invention is intended to aid or replace human analysis of a root cause, a mental process. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(II), and improvement to a mental process is still a mental process.
Applicant argues that the limitations are too complex to be performed in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Limitations cited above as mental processes are not claimed in such a way that a human could not do them, for example, looking at code to determine a change. Argued complexity of errors and specifically how this system would find such complex errors is not clear in the claim language.
Applicant argues that a dependency graph is not math. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the attached reference, Wikipedia, “Directed Acyclic Graph,” 2025, which describes a graph showing dependencies as mathematics.
Applicant argues that the new limitations overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, but Examiner respectfully disagrees. As cited above, these two new limitations further specify data types.
Please see the above rejection for further details.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the newly amended features of the claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The art has been cited as teaching these limitations. Please see the above rejections for further details.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIELLA SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3117. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-3PM EST.
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.
/G.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2113 /BRYCE P BONZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2113