DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Rejection Office Action in response to the 7/10/2026 submission filed in Application 19/014,19. Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-15, 17-23 are now presented.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/10/2026 regarding the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant argues “As applied here, the independent claims integrate any alleged abstract ideas into a practical application because, when viewed as a whole, the independent claims improve computer functionality by leveraging a remediation action triggered when a severity score, derived from a weighted dependency graph, exceeds a threshold. This approach represents a technical improvement to computer functionality. For example, rather than merely providing information or automating human judgment, the independent claims recite steps for actively evaluating and intervening to reverse or mitigate destabilizing (e.g., high severity) updates. This leads to an improvement in computer functionality by enabling the system to identify and reverse potentially destabilizing updates in an efficient manner (e.g., before the updates propagate adverse effects throughout the production environment). This, in turn, reduces downtime, prevents cascading failures, and allows for more resilient and self-healing infrastructure. Accordingly, the claims provide a technical solution that enables production environments to become more self-healing and adaptive, which is an improvement over conventional systems that rely on manual intervention. See Specification, Paras. [0016]-[0017].”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The performance of a reverse to the update with a severity score is above a threshold can amount to a human performing the rollback when alerted to do so. This amounts to following rules or instructions which is abstract. Limitations that can be classified as abstract cannot also amount to a technical improvement. As such, the Examiner is unpersuaded that the performance of the recited reverse is an improvement to the technology.
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 1-15, 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, in step 2A prong 1 it must then be determined whether the claim is recite a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim recites a judicial exception, under step 2A prong 2 it must additionally be determined whether the recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim does not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application, under step 2B it must then be determined if the claim provides an inventive concept.
In the Instant case, Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12, 21-23 are directed toward a method for method for assessing stability in a production environment. Claims 13-15 are directed toward a system for method for assessing stability in a production environment. Claims 17-20 are directed toward a computer program product for method for assessing stability in a production environment. As such, each of the Claims is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
MPEP 2106.04 II. A. explains that in step 2A prong 1 Examiners are to determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a) explains that:
To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
As per step 2A prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, claim 1 recites the abstract idea of assessing stability in a production environment which falls into the abstract idea categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. The elements of Claim 1 that represent the Abstract idea include:
transmitting an update implemented in the production environment;
parsing, historical incident data to extract one or more attributes of an incident;
utilizing a weighted dependency graph containing nodes and edges, representing the production environment, the weighted dependency graph generated based on relationships between components of the production environment extracted from a configuration file representing a configuration of a plurality of applications within the production environment, wherein each of the plurality of applications in the production environment is represented as one of the nodes in the weighted dependency graph and wherein the edges connect the nodes to indicate dependencies between the plurality of applications;
weighting the nodes and edges of the weighted dependency graph based on historical incident data related to past environment disruptions, wherein a node corresponding to one of the plurality of applications with more than one dependency has a higher weight than another one of the plurality of applications with up to one dependency;and
generating the severity impact score based on at least the weighted nodes and edges; and
based on determining that the severity score is above a threshold, performing a remediation action within the production environment to reverse the update implemented in the production environment
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
The instant claims are directed analyzing a potential change in a production environment. It is a fundamental business practice to analyze the impact of potential changes. Further, implementing the potential update (including revering the update) to the production environment when the impact score is lower than a threshold value amounts to following rules or instructions.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states:
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions
The instant claims recite mental processes including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. For example, the parsing, utilizing a weighted graph, weighting the nodes and edges of the dependency graph based on historical incident data, and generating an impact score are mental processes. There is nothing in nothing the claims that preclude these steps from being performed mentally. As such, the claims recite abstract ideas.
Under step 2A prong 2 the examiner must then determine if the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04 states:
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e)
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In the instant case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
A computer-implemented method for assessing stability in a production environment the method comprising:
transmitting, by a first computing device to a second computing device;
receiving, from the second computing device at the first computing device, an impact score of the potential update;
implementing the abstract idea by a computing device; or
generating, by the first computing device, an alert for display when the impact score is above a threshold value.
However, the computer and computing devices are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further MPEP 2105.05(g) explains that data gathering and data output can be considered pre-solution activity and post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) that states:
An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.
The broadly recited transmitting and receiving of data from the second computing device at the first computing device amounts to insignificant pre-solution activity. Similarly, the generating of an alert amounts to an output of an analysis which is insignificant post solution activity.
Viewing the generic data gathering and alert output in combination with the generic computer does not add more than when viewing the elements individually. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In step 2B, the examiner must determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d). As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the processing circuitry in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide and inventive concept.
Further, nothing in the specification indicates that the retrieving of data is anything other than conventional. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d) states “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink."”
Further, the Examiner takes Official Notice that outputting an alert in well-known and conventional.
Viewing the generic data gathering and output of an analysis in combination with the generic computer does not add more than when viewing the elements individually. Accordingly, the additional elements do provide and inventive concept.
Further, Claims 2-12, 16 further limit the mental processes and method of organizing human activity already rejected in the parent claim, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Further, Claims 8-9 recite the use of neural networks. The additional elements of the broadly recited neural networks attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it”. Further, the claims do not state how the neural networks determines weights. As such, the broadly recited neural networks does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further, similar to the analysis with respect to step 2A prong 2 recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished cannot provide an inventive concept under step 2B of the eligibility analysis.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 2-12, 16 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. The presentment of claim 1 otherwise styled as a computer program product, or apparatus for example, would be subject to the same analysis. As such, claims 13-15, 17-20 are also rejected.
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 DEIRDRE D HATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/DEIRDRE D HATCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
