DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments submitted on December 19, 2025 for Preliminary Amendment filed on September 26, 2024 for Application # 18/886,868 filed on September 16, 2024 in which claims 6-25 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. The priority date request is place in the file for Provisional Application No 63/583,300 filed on September 17, 2023.
Status of claims
Claims 6-25 are pending, of which claims 6, 15 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-5 are Canceled.
Claims 1-25 are amended.
Claims 26-28 are newly added.
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 6, 15 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims recite a method, computer program product and system. Therefore, Step 1 is satisfied for claims 6-25.
Step 2A Prong One: The independent claims analyzing selected data, technician words and providing solutions, abstract ideas. Given the breadth of the present claim language, claim that recites compressing policy of the events into incidents can be performed in a human mind, which is a “mental process” of abstract idea set forth in the 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826. The recitations of method, device and non-transitory computer readable medium does not change the mental process nature of these limitations because the computing machinery is a tool to perform the otherwise mental processes. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii). Thus, the limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. The method that is recited in the independent claim limitation of training machine learning model can be performed by using a pen and paper can be drawn on a paper and just using to which can be done by a human mind.
For purposes of further discussion, the limitations are treated as a single abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The examiner finds no additional claim elements beyond the judicial exception, whether individually or in combination, that integrate the exception into a practical application.
Claims 6 and 25
identifying a plurality of events detected by a system;
generating a plurality of incidents based, at least in part, on a set of one or more compression policies and the plurality of events, wherein two or more events in the plurality of events are represented by a single incident in the plurality of incidents;
displaying, on a Graphical User Interface (GUI), a first plurality of interface elements corresponding to the plurality of events;
displaying, on the GUI, a second plurality of interface elements corresponding to the plurality of incidents; and
displaying, on the GUI, a third plurality of interface elements that maps the plurality of events to the plurality of incidents, wherein the two or more events are mapped to the single incident by a set of one or more interface elements in the third plurality of interface elements.
Claim 15
identifying a plurality of events detected by a system;
generating a first plurality of incidents based, at least in part, on a first set of one or more event processing mechanisms and to the plurality of events, wherein the first set of one or more event processing mechanisms does not comprise a particular compression policy;
generating a second plurality of incidents based, at least in part, on a second set of one or more event processing mechanisms and the plurality of events, the second set of one or more event processing mechanisms comprising the particular compression policy, wherein two or more events in the plurality of events are compressed by the particular compression policy into a single incident in the second plurality of incidents;
displaying, on a Graphical User Interface (GUI), a first plurality of interface elements corresponding to the first plurality of incidents;
displaying, on the GUI, a second plurality of interface elements corresponding to the second plurality of incidents; and
displaying, on the GUI, a third plurality of interface elements that map the first plurality of incidents to the second plurality of incidents, wherein the third plurality of interface elements
The computer elements are recited at a high degree of generality and represent instructions to apply the judicial exception on a system, which is an compressing policies. There is no indication of any specialized programming algorithm or specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components. These limitations can also be viewed as applying the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Please see MPEP 2106.05(I).
The examiner finds no claimed improvement to computers or other technology to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The examiner therefore concludes that the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: Does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception? The examiner finds no additional elements or combination that provide an inventive concept. The additional elements such as compress policy applying for events into incidents is an algorithm ‘software’ is not significant invention.
The examiner concludes that none of the dependent claims as presently drafted recite patent eligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 19, 2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 6, 15 and 25 are directed to the abstract idea of generating a plurality of incidents based, at least in part, on a set of one or more compression policies and the plurality of events, wherein two or more events in the plurality of events are represented by a single incident in the plurality of incidents; generating a first plurality of incidents based, at least in part, on a first set of one or more event processing mechanisms and to the plurality of events, wherein the first set of one or more event processing mechanisms does not comprise a particular compression policy; displaying, on a Graphical User Interface (GUI), a first plurality of interface elements corresponding to the plurality of events; displaying, on the GUI, a second plurality of interface elements corresponding to the plurality of incidents; and displaying, on the GUI, a third plurality of interface elements that maps the plurality of events to the plurality of incidents, wherein the two or more events are mapped to the single incident by a set of one or more interface elements in the third plurality of interface elements. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements such as generating an incident by using compression policies for the event received for a system and also displaying the incidents in three different formats in graphical user interface, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 6, 15 and 25 are directed to an abstract recited in the form of a generalized invention which can be performed in a human mind with a pencil and paper. The particular claimed elements which constitute the abstract idea include
generating a plurality of incidents based, at least in part, on a set of one or more compression policies and the plurality of events, wherein two or more events in the plurality of events are represented by a single incident in the plurality of incidents; generating a first plurality of incidents based, at least in part, on a first set of one or more event processing mechanisms and to the plurality of events, wherein the first set of one or more event processing mechanisms does not comprise a particular compression policy; displaying, on a Graphical User Interface (GUI), a first plurality of interface elements corresponding to the plurality of events; displaying, on the GUI, a second plurality of interface elements corresponding to the plurality of incidents; and displaying, on the GUI, a third plurality of interface elements that maps the plurality of events to the plurality of incidents, wherein the two or more events are mapped to the single incident by a set of one or more interface elements in the third plurality of interface elements.
A grouping for events from a system into incidents based on compression policy, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification.
Mathematical relationships and algorithms have been found by the courts (e.g. Benson, Flook, Diehr, Grams) to be abstract ideas. For example, in Benson, a mathematical procedure for converting one form of numerical representation to another was found to be an exception, as was an algorithm for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition in Grams. The concept described in claims 6, 15 and 25 does not meaningfully differ from those found by the courts to constitute mathematical algorithms.
The claim does 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. Additional elements recited in the claim include the limitations: a computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that when executed by a computer cause the computer to perform the method; generating incidents by grouping event based on certain predefined policy ‘rules’, can also be interpreted as algorithmic logic. These limitations are directed to realizing the mathematical algorithm in a computer system. Executing the using a model to grouping events into incidents is little more than a broad recitation of generic use of a computer (i.e., executing). Providing the compression policy is at most insignificant post solution activity of displaying the events and incidents in GUI. The preamble's recitation of a "computer-readable medium" and a "computer" are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Further, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because merely providing a result and executing the algorithm by a computer is akin to adding the words “apply it” with a computer in conjunction with the abstract idea. Such limitations are not enough to add significantly more to the method of business rules of grouping into incidents, which represent mathematical relationships and algorithms.
Considering all the limitations in combination, the claimed additional computer elements do not show any inventive concept in applying the mathematical operations, such as improving the performance of a computer or any other technology. The steps describe nothing more than a computer’s basic function of generating incidents from system events based on compression policy, and do not meaningfully limit the performance of the calculation. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-28 are allowable over prior-art on record. However, the applicant is requested to address the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection for independent claims 6, 15 and 25 of being an abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 PAVAN MAMILLAPALLI whose telephone number is (571)270-3836. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F. 8am - 4pm, 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, Ann J Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAVAN MAMILLAPALLI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights