DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 23 June 2025.
Claims 1 – 20 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 .
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 claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The independent claims recite determining that a historical technical issue that was encountered is related to a current technical issue that is encountered based at least on a confidence factor associated with the historical technical issue being greater than or equal to a confidence threshold, using a model by providing historical information that indicates at least a first attribute of the historical technical issue and current information that indicates at least a second attribute of the current technical issue as inputs to the model, the confidence factor representing a confidence that the first attribute of the historical technical issue corresponds to the second attribute of the current technical issue; identifying historical mitigation workflows that were performed to mitigate the historical technical issue, the historical mitigation workflows including historical mitigation operations; determining extents to which the historical mitigation operations in the historical mitigation workflows mitigated the historical technical issue; generating an instruction, which causes the model to generate a mitigation workflow that is configured to mitigate the current technical issue by selecting identified historical mitigation operations from the historical mitigation operations based at least on the extents to which the identified historical mitigation operations mitigated the historical technical issue satisfying a criterion; and mitigating the current technical issue by executing the mitigation workflow, including the identified historical mitigation operations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance section 2106 of the MPEP (hereinafter, MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the system, the method, and the computer program product are directed to an eligible categories of subject matter. Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A prong 1 of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of managing interactions between people such as following rules or instructions, which falls into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106. The claimed invention also recites an abstract idea that falls within the mental processes grouping including making observations and evaluations such as the comparisons made. The limitations reciting the abstract idea in independent claims are determining that a historical technical issue that was encountered is related to a current technical issue that is encountered based at least on a confidence factor associated with the historical technical issue being greater than or equal to a confidence threshold, using a model by providing historical information that indicates at least a first attribute of the historical technical issue and current information that indicates at least a second attribute of the current technical issue as inputs to the model, the confidence factor representing a confidence that the first attribute of the historical technical issue corresponds to the second attribute of the current technical issue; identifying historical mitigation workflows that were performed to mitigate the historical technical issue, the historical mitigation workflows including historical mitigation operations; determining extents to which the historical mitigation operations in the historical mitigation workflows mitigated the historical technical issue; generating an instruction, which causes the model to generate a mitigation workflow that is configured to mitigate the current technical issue by selecting identified historical mitigation operations from the historical mitigation operations based at least on the extents to which the identified historical mitigation operations mitigated the historical technical issue satisfying a criterion; and mitigating the current technical issue by executing the mitigation workflow, including the identified historical mitigation operations.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to a memory, a processing system coupled to the memory, computing service, machine learning, computing system, computer program product, computer-readable storage medium, and processor-based system, to implement the abstract idea. Machine learning models being used and caused to perform otherwise manual tasks such as generating a workflow are not significantly more, especially because it is not known how the machine learning is implemented. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are directed to the use of generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
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. The additional limitations are directed to: a memory, a processing system coupled to the memory, computing service, machine learning, computing system, computer program product, computer-readable storage medium, and processor-based system. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment, though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and it is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
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 conventional 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 the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of concepts of specifying mitigation operations with a configuration to execute steps, by way of example, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. 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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in any combination, including the prior art of Fite-Georgel (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2018/0120109) and Cella (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2019/0339684), teach determining the extents to which identified historical mitigation operations in the historical mitigation workflows mitigated the historical technical issue; and generate an instruction, which causes the machine learning model to generate a mitigation workflow that is configured to mitigate the current technical issue by selecting identified historical mitigation operations from the historical mitigation operations based at least on the extents to which the identified historical mitigation operations mitigated the historical technical issue satisfying a criterion.
Neither the prior art, the nature of the problem, not knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art provides for any predictable or reasonable rationale to combine prior art teachings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA GURSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7am to 5pm 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, 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.
/AMANDA GURSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights