DETAILED ACTION
This office action is made final. Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-16, and 19-26 are pending. 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 Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 08/10/2026, Amended claims 1-2, 5-9, 13, 15-16, and 20. Canceled claims 3-4, 10-11, and 17-18. Added new claims 21-26.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection to claims 1-20, under 35 USC 101 (Alice), will be maintained.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection, Applicant's remarks filed on 10 August 2026 (pages 11-13 in particular) were deemed to be persuasive and adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why claims are allowable over the prior art of record.
Applicant’s arguments received on 08/10/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Moreover, any new grounds of rejection have been necessitated by Applicant's amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant asserts that “amended claims 1, 8, and 15 integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong Two.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed below, under the second prong of Step 2A, we determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55.
Here, under the second prong of Step 2A, the only additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of claim 1, and similarly claims 8 & 15, are the recitations of “a specific automated rule that governs whether the incident-notification system releases an interruptive notification: for each responder, a respective notification configuration is modified, based on resolution data and on alert data extracted from the interrupt events associated with incidents assigned to the responder, to indicate whether to buffer notifications for a threshold duration; and, when a new incident is assigned to the responder, a notification associated with the new incident is buffered according to the respective modified notification configuration, and the system determines whether to transmit that buffered notification to the responder based on a determination of whether the incoming alert is resolved within the threshold duration are carried out by at least one computing device,” and these additional elements, individually and in combination, are nothing more than computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Accordingly, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A.
Applicant asserts that “claims satisfy 35 U.S.C. §101 for claims 1, 8, and 15, in which each responder's respective notification configuration is modified based on resolution data and on alert data extracted from the interrupt events associated with incidents assigned to the responder, a notification is buffered during a configured time window, and the system then determines whether to transmit the buffered notification depending on whether the underlying alert resolves within that window, is not shown to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The MPEP discusses that "the second part of the Alice/Mayo test [(Step 2B)] is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept," and "an 'inventive concept' is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself." MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis added). Further, the MPEP goes on to describe "Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Examiners should answer this question by first identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)).” MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis added).
The search for an inventive concept under § 101 is distinct from demonstrating novel and non-obviousness. See SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, slip op. at 2-3 (Fed Cir. May 15, 2018) (citing Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even novel and newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. July 2015 Update, p. 3; see SAP America at 2. In Step 2B, “[w]hat is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm.” SAP America at 11. As discussed in SAP America, no matter how much of an advance the claims recite, when “the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm,” “[a]n advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.” Id. at 3.
Here, under Step 2B, the only additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of claim 1, and similarly claims 8 & 15, are the recitations of “each responder's respective notification configuration is modified based on resolution data and on alert data extracted from the interrupt events associated with incidents assigned to the responder, a notification is buffered during a configured time window, and the system then determines whether to transmit the buffered notification depending on whether the underlying alert are carried out by at least one computing device,” and these additional elements, individually and in combination, are nothing more than computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Accordingly, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
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 1-2, 5-9, 12-16, and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-16, and 19-26 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea. Claims 1, 8, and 15 include “determine interrupt events from a plurality of notification events generated by one or more of a plurality of computer systems, wherein the interrupt events are determined based on respective corresponding notification events being sent in respective manners designed to immediately alert a responder; receive interrupt events and extract alert data indicating occurrence of monitored conditions in a managed information technology environment; modify, with respect to each responder one or more responders, a notification configuration, wherein the respective notification configuration is modified, based on resolution data and alert data extracted from the interrupt events associated with incidents assigned to the responder, to indicate whether to buffer notifications for a threshold duration prior to transmitting notifications to the responder; and transmit a notification to the responder according to the respective modified notification configuration in response to assigning a new incident to the responder, wherein to transmit the notification to the responder comprises to: assign, based on an incoming alert, the new incident to the responder; buff er a notification associated with the new incident according to the respective modified notification configuration; and determine whether to transmit the notification associated with the new incident to the responder based on a determination of whether the incoming alert is resolved within the threshold duration of assigning the new incident to the responder”.
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity-managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and mental processes in that their concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because the elements describe a process for managing operations. As a result, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16, and 19-26 further describe the process for managing operations. As a result, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15 include a memory, a processor, instructions stored in the memory, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. When considered in view of the claim, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2, 5-6, 9, 12-13, 16, and 19-26 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15. As a result, claims 2, 5-6, 9, 12-13, 16, and 19-26 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claims 7 and 14 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 7 and 14 include a short message service, a multimedia messaging service, a phone call, a pager page, and a push notification. When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 7 and 14 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claims 1, 8, and 15 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15 include a memory, a processor, instructions stored in the memory, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2, 5-6, 9, 12-13, 16, and 19-26 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15. As a result, claims 2, 5-6, 9, 12-13, 16, and 19-26 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claims 7 and 14 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 7 and 14 include a short message service, a multimedia messaging service, a phone call, a pager page, and a push notification. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 7 and 14 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-16, and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 HAFIZ A KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8534. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:00 PM.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/HAFIZ A KASSIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 08/24/2026
Prosecution Insights