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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed 08/07/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 13, 20 have been amended.
Claim 8 remains canceled.
Claims 1-3, 9-12, 20 are allowed.
Claims 4-7, 13-19 are rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “in order drive an impact on the system issue” in line 11 of the claim, which appears to have mistakenly left out ‘to’ after the word ‘order’. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-7, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the normalization and aggregation" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5-7 depend either directly or indirectly on claim 4 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as a result.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the technology infrastructure" in line 17 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14-19 depend either directly or indirectly on claim 13 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as a result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-24, filed 08/07/2026, with respect to claims 1-7, 9-20 have been fully considered in view of the amendment and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-7, 9-20 has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 9-12, 20 are allowed.
Claims 4-7, 13-19 would be allowable if amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth in this OFFICE ACTION.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claim 1, the examiner found no prior arts that teach or fairly suggest, either alone or in combination, each and every limitations of the claim when the claim is taken into the consideration as a whole. The closest prior art cited is Yan et al. (PG Pub. 2020/0,351,149 A1) [hereafter Yan]. Yan discloses method of collecting service/network metrics to perform sequential analysis on the collected metrics to determine an impact on an incident on the information technology infrastructure, and deriving resolution prioritized based on the severity of the impact. Yan, however, fails to teach “performing, by the computing device, sequential analysis on the input data by applying cognitive artificial intelligence to scan for machine learned pattern of incident solution pairs for dynamic context presented during an incident on the information technology infrastructure in order to derive an impact on the incident and to generate impact correlation scores indicative of candidate causes of the incident.”
Claims 2-3, 9-12 depend either directly or indirectly on claim 1 and are allowable as a result.
Claims 4-7 depend either directly or indirectly on claim 1 and would be allowable as a result if amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth in this OFFICE ACTION.
Claim 13 is a product claim reciting similar features of claim 1 found allowable by the examiner and would be allowable for the same reasons if amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth in this OFFICE ACTION.
Claims 14-19 depend either directly or indirectly on claim 13 and would be allowable as a result if amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth in this OFFICE ACTION.
Claim 20 is a system claim reciting similar features of claim 1 found allowable by the examiner and is allowable for the same reasons
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PG Pub. 2020/0,186,411 A1 discloses method and system for performing effective orchestration of cognitive functions in a distributed heterogeneous communication network. In response to determining a fault or a performance issue and associated causes, the method determines possible resolutions for the fault or the performance issue based on the associated causes, identifying a resolution by evaluating each of the possible resolutions for at least one of a suitability to or an impact on the set of services or the set of network slices.
PG Pub. 2019/0,372,827 A1 discloses a method for detecting a set of anomalous measurements from a network over time and computing an anomaly severity score based on weighted severity factors. The weighted severity factors are adjusted based on user feedback received in response to an anomaly alert to a user interface.
PG Pub. 2020/0,090,088 A1 discloses a system for measuring performance of an enterprise architecture, and providing recommendations for an account within the enterprise architecture based upon enterprise assessments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAE M KO whose telephone number is (571)270-3886. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/CHAE M KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights