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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/18/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Application
This is a Non-Final Action in response to the Amendments and Remarks filed on 02/18/2026.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are amended.
No claims are new or canceled.
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined herein.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,141,760. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the added limitation is merely describing the machine learning. The Examiner finds the limitation describing the machine learning is merely a description of the machine learning and does not provide any alteration to any step of the method or any function of the system. This is because the limitation is merely describing what the machine learning is trained to do without positively reciting any function and wherein the elements “action characteristics and system state variables…” are not further used in the claim for any subsequent step or function thereby not modifying the method or system and not altering any of the subsequent steps. Therefore it has little to no patentable weight and does not distinguish over US Patent 12,141,760.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the claims are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process and machine, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-20 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” groups within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that recite concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claims 1 and 10 and 19 recites the abstract idea of facilitating incident resolution [002]. In claims 1, 10 and 19 this idea is described by the following claim steps:
obtaining, incident response information for each of a plurality of system incidents;
building, a model using the incident response information, wherein the model is to identify action characteristics and system state variables which, when varied, produce changes in predetermined resolution parameters.;
establishing, a system incident scenario including a set of scenario incident characteristics;
running, a plurality of simulations of the system incident scenario wherein each of the plurality of simulations includes at least one variation of a first critical action characteristic and each of the plurality of simulations generating a first simulated incident resolution parameter;
iterating the running of a plurality of simulations for variation of a second critical action characteristic, each iteration generating a second simulated incident resolution parameter result; and
optimizing the variations that maximize both the first and second simulated incident resolution parameter result when compared to a predetermined improvement criteria.
This idea falls within the mental processes and mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas because it is directed towards concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The noted abstract idea is further directed to mathematical concepts when mathematical relationships is required to simulate an incident scenario.
Because the above-noted limitations recite steps falling within the Mental Processes and Mathematical Concepts abstract idea groupings of the MPEP 2106, they have been determined to recite at least one abstract idea when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the Mental Processes and Mathematical Concepts abstract idea groupings described in the MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are:
an incident resolution improvement processor;
building a machine learning model;
running, by the machine learning model, a plurality of simulations;
a non-transitory computer-accessible medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions;
a data storage unit;
an incident resolution improvement data processor.
However, using a computer environment such as a processor, and a memory and other recited computer elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Facilitating incident resolution can reasonably be performed by pencil and paper until limited to a computerized environment by requiring a processor and a machine learning module.
Regarding the limitation “building, by the incident resolution improvement processor, a machine learning model using the incident response information” and “running, by the machine learning model, a plurality of simulations”, the examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.). Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and alternatively serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method, computer system, and computer program product that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1, 10 and 19 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a commercial or legal interaction or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-19 and 20 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above.
Dependent claim 2, 8 and 11, 17 further limits the abstract idea by introducing determining, by the incident resolution improvement processor, a proposed action based on the optimized variations of the first and second simulated incident resolution parameter results and wherein the proposed action is or includes at least one of the set consisting of: a change in personnel responsible for carrying out the selected critical action, a change in team responsibility for carrying out the selected critical action, and a change in system resources used to carry out the selected critical action. Determining a proposed action based on the optimized variation is a process that could be performed manually until limited by a processor. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 3-4 and 11-12 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the limitations transmitting, to a manager processing system, an incident response improvement recommendation including the proposed action and transmitting, by the incident resolution improvement processor to a data processing component of an incident resolution system, an action implementation command comprising instructions to carry out the proposed action. Transmitting data is a process that could be performed manually until limited by a processor. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of transmitting information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 5, 14 and 20 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the limitation wherein the system incident scenario is established based on the incident response information for one of the plurality of system incidents. Further embellishing the abstract idea by providing further descriptions does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. The recitation of a user device merely links the abstract idea of to a technological environment. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 6-7 and 15-16 further limits the abstract idea by linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use by introducing the limitation wherein the first simulated incident resolution parameter is a simulated total incident resolution time interval and the predetermined criteria includes a minimum reduction in the simulated total incident resolution time interval as compared to an actual total incident resolution time for the one of the plurality of system incidents and determining, by the incident resolution improvement processor, an application processing system associated with the one of the plurality of incidents, obtaining, by the incident resolution improvement processor, current system status information for the application processing system; and prior to running the plurality of simulations, replacing, by the incident resolution improvement processor, the system status information for the one of the plurality of system incidents with the current system status information. Simulating an incident is a process that can be performed manually until limited by the use of a machine learning model. The examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.). Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 9 and 18 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the limitation wherein the at least one variation of the first critical action characteristic is or includes at least one of the set consisting of: a change in personnel responsible for carrying out the selected critical action, a change in team responsibility for carrying out the selected critical action, and a change in system resources used to carry out the selected critical action. Further embellishing the abstract idea by providing further descriptions does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. The recitation of a user device merely links the abstract idea of to a technological environment. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide high level of generality computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For more information see MPEP 2106.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In an updated search, examiner identified references (provided in the conclusion section), which, while generally relevant to the field of endeavor, stop short at the specificity required by the claim.
In regards to the previously presented Double Patent Rejection, the rejection has been modified to an obviousness type non-statutory double patent due to the amendments provided.
In regards to the previously presented 35 USC 101, Applicant argues:
On page 11 “Claim 1 as amended recites “building… a machine learning model using the incident response information, the machine learning model trained to identify action characteristics and system state variables which, when varied, produce changes in predetermined resolution parameters." Training a machine learning model to identify which action characteristics and system state variables produce changes in resolution parameters-and then using that trained model to run simulations-is not an activity that can practically be performed in the human mind.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As a first matter, the claim merely requires to build a machine learning model and using the machine learning model built not the trained machine learning model since the training is not positively recited but merely provided as a description of the machine learning model. Second, using a model to run a simulation is directed to a mathematical relationship and something that could be performed by a person, perhaps with the aid of pen and paper. As explained previously, to manually simulate a model, one can define the model, identify the parameters, run simulations manually and analyze the outputs. It is noted that the claims, as written, does not indicate any highly complex environment technology system but rather linking the abstract idea to a technological environment by requiring the use of a machine learning model as a tool to perform the abstract idea of simulating resolution parameters. The claims, as written, requires to obtain incident response information for each of a plurality of system incidents, build a model using the incident response infraction and run a plurality of simulations using the model. However, no details providing complexity is indicated in the claims.
Further on page 11, Applicant argues claim 1 is analogous to Examiner 39. The examiner respectfully disagrees reiterating how both in the Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis and above the examiner viewed the step pertaining to building a machine learning model to be results oriented steps that do not provide for integrate the abstract idea of facilitating incident resolution. Furthermore, the examiner views the step pertaining to building the machine learning model as equivalent to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computing components rather than an improvement to an operation of a machine learning model architecture. Regarding Example 39 the examiner notes how the claims were determined to not recite a judicial exception in comparison to the present set of claims that recite a judicial exception in the form of mental processes and mathematical concepts.
Further on page 11, “Claim 1 as amended recites a particular way to achieve the desired outcome: training a machine learning model to identify which action characteristics and system state variables produce changes in resolution parameters, then using that trained model to run simulations with variations of those identified characteristics, and optimizing across multiple parameters. This is not merely the idea of improving incident resolution-it is a specific technical approach.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim requirement is to build a machine learning model and using the machine learning model built not a trained machine learning model since the training is not positively recited but merely provided as a description of the machine learning model. Examiner further points out to MPEP 2106.05 Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g); and Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). In the instant case the Applicant is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by requiring the use of a machine learning model to simulate incident scenarios wherein such does not constitute an integration to a practical application.
On page 12 “Claim 1 as amended does not merely recite the idea of using machine learning-it specifies that the machine learning model is trained to identify action characteristics and system state variables which, when varied, produce changes in predetermined resolution parameters. This provides the technical detail of how the model is configured to accomplish the claimed simulation and optimization.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim requirement is to build a machine learning model and using the machine learning model built not the trained machine learning model as argued since the training is not positively recited but merely provided as a description of the machine learning model.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0064625, Patti, METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR RECOMMENDING RUNBOOKS FOR DETECTED EVENTS. The present disclosure relates to recommending relevant runbooks during a runbook selection process. In particular, the present disclosure relates to an event-aware, topology-aware runbook selection for remediating an event.
US 2022/0038251, Jasionowski, IDENTIFICATION OF INCIDENT REQUIRED RESOLUTION TIME. The present invention relates generally to the field of incident response, and more particularly to the use of machine learning in the field of incident response.
US 10599449, Chatzipanagiotis Predictive Action Modeling To Streamline User Interface, This disclosure is directed to predicting future sequential actions likely to be performed by users while interacting with electronic content via user devices, and then streamlining access to controls or other information to enable the users to perform the predicted actions, while reducing computational demands on computing devices that provide the electronic content by, for example, reducing unnecessary intervening computing actions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA C SANTOS-DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/MARIA C SANTOS-DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629