DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12: Change to “…the operations comprising[[.]]:…” (page 2).
Claim 17: Change to “…the operations comprising[[.]]:…” (page 3).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 12, and 17 recite:
receiving, by a computing system as part of an execution of a computer application, application status data describing an error that occurred during the execution of the computer application;
generating, by the computing system, a model input using the application status data;
providing, by the computing system, the model input to a machine-learned model;
receiving, by the computing system, a model output from the machine-learned model, the model output including a natural language message to a user to respond to the error described by the application status data; and
displaying, by the computing system, the model output to the user.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 1 is a process.
Claim 12 is a machine.
Claim 17 is an article of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘generating’ limitation in # 2 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person thinking about data and writing down, e.g., a simple text string using pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘receiving’ limitations in # 1 and 4 above, as claimed and under BRI, are additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘providing’ limitation in # 3 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, “providing” in the context of this claim encompasses merely applying the aforementioned, thought-out text string to a generic algorithm. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The ‘displaying’ limitation in # 5 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “displaying” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data output / manipulation. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, one or more of the claims recite the following additional elements:
a computing system (Claims 1, 12, and 17),
a computer application (Claims 1, 12, and 17),
a computing device (Claim 12),
one or more processors (Claim 12),
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (Claim 12),
instructions (Claims 12 and 17),
a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Claim 17), and
one or more computing devices (Claim 17).
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply an exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally, with regards to # 1, 4, and 5 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. 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); and
iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claims 2, 4, 13, 15, 18, and 20 merely further describe the claimed application status data of Claims 1, 12, and 17, respectively, in the context of a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 3, 14, and 19 merely further describe the claimed error code of Claims 1, 12, and 17, respectively, in the context of a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 5, 11, and 16 merely further describe the claimed machine-learned model of Claims 1 and 12, respectively, in the context of a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 6 merely further describes the claimed model input of Claim 1 in the context of a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 7 merely further describes the claimed prompt of Claim 6 in the context of a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 8 and 9 merely further describe the claimed contextual data of Claim 7 in the context of a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 10 recites:
determining, by the computing system and based on the application status data, one or more sources of data associated with the error that occurred during the execution of the computer application;
accessing, by the computing system, contextual data from the one or more determined sources of data; and
adding, by the computing system, the contextual data to the model input.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘determining’ limitation in # 6 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person evaluating data.
The ‘adding’ limitation in # 8 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “adding” in the context of this claim encompasses the person thinking about data and writing down, e.g., a simple text string using pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘accessing’ limitation in # 7 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “accessing” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to # 7 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Acharya et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2025/0045148 A1), hereinafter “Acharya.”
With regards to Claim 1, Acharya teaches:
a computer-implemented method for reducing computer system downtime, the method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system as part of an execution of a computer application, application status data describing an error that occurred during the execution of the computer application (Fig. 1; ¶ 0026; regarding, e.g., system 100 [a computing system]; ¶ 0015-0117; Fig. 2; ¶ 0048-0049; regarding, e.g., an error file identifier [application status data {in part}]; and ¶ 0052; regarding, e.g., a context [application status data {in part}].);
generating, by the computing system, a model input using the application status data (¶ 0018; Fig. 2; and ¶ 0056-0058; regarding, e.g., a prompt.);
providing, by the computing system, the model input to a machine-learned model (¶ 0019; regarding, e.g., a language model; Fig. 2; ¶ 0058; and ¶ 0061.);
receiving, by the computing system, a model output from the machine-learned model, the model output including a natural language message to a user to respond to the error described by the application status data (Fig. 2; ¶ 0062; Figs. 3D-3F; and ¶ 0066-0068.); and
displaying, by the computing system, the model output to the user (Fig. 2; ¶ 0062; Figs. 3D-3F; and ¶ 0066-0068.).
With regards to Claim 2, Acharya teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Acharya further teaches:
wherein the application status data includes an error code (Fig. 2 and ¶ 0048-0049; regarding, e.g., the error file identifier.).
With regards to Claim 4, Acharya teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Acharya further teaches:
wherein the application status data describes a type of error and a context of the error (Fig. 2; ¶ 0048-0049; Fig. 3A; ¶ 0063; regarding, e.g., a portion of software code that has caused or contributed to a detected issue [a type of error]; and ¶ 0052.).
With regards to Claim 5, Acharya teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Acharya further teaches:
wherein the machine-learned model is a generative model (¶ 0014; regarding, e.g., a large language model [LLM].).
With regards to Claim 6, Acharya teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Acharya further teaches:
wherein the model input is a prompt (Fig. 2 and ¶ 0056-0058.).
With regards to Claim 7, Acharya teaches the method of Claim 6 as referenced above. Acharya further teaches:
wherein the prompt includes the application status data and contextual data associated with operation of the computing system (Fig. 2; ¶ 0057-0058; and ¶ 0061.).
With regards to Claim 8, Acharya teaches the method of Claim 7 as referenced above. Acharya further teaches:
wherein the contextual data includes user profile data describing a current level of understanding associated with the user (Fig. 2 and ¶ 0058; regarding, e.g., a selected prompt from a user which indicates either a first prompt that is a short summary or a second prompt that is detailed.).
With regards to Claim 9, Acharya teaches the method of Claim 8 as referenced above. Acharya further teaches:
wherein the contextual data includes information describing a current operational status of one or more components of the computing system executing the computer application (¶ 0015-0017.).
With regards to Claim 10, Acharya teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Acharya further teaches:
wherein generating, by the computing system, the model input using the error data further comprises:
determining, by the computing system and based on the application status data, one or more sources of data associated with the error that occurred during the execution of the computer application (¶ 0015-0017; regarding, e.g., information identifying functions and subroutines [one or more sources of data] executed while an application or service is active.);
accessing, by the computing system, contextual data from the one or more determined sources of data (¶ 0015-0017.); and
adding, by the computing system, the contextual data to the model input (¶ 0015-0017; Fig. 2; and ¶ 0058.).
With regards to Claim 11, Acharya teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Acharya further teaches:
wherein the machine-learned model is a sequence processing model (¶ 0014; regarding, e.g., the LLM.).
With regards to Claim 12, the method of Claim 1 performs the same steps as the device of Claim 12, and Claim 12 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 1 by the teachings of Acharya.
Acharya further teaches:
a computing device, the computing device comprising:
one or more processors (Fig. 5; ¶ 0076-0077; and ¶ 0079.); and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations (Fig. 5; ¶ 0076-0077; ¶ 0079; and ¶ 0082.).
With regards to Claim 13, Acharya teaches the device of Claim 12 as referenced above. The method of Claim 2 performs the same steps as the device of Claim 13, and Claim 13 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 2 by the teachings of Acharya.
With regards to Claim 15, Acharya teaches the device of Claim 12 as referenced above. The method of Claim 4 performs the same steps as the device of Claim 15, and Claim 15 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 4 by the teachings of Acharya.
With regards to Claim 16, Acharya teaches the device of Claim 12 as referenced above. The method of Claim 5 performs the same steps as the device of Claim 16, and Claim 16 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 5 by the teachings of Acharya.
With regards to Claim 17, the method of Claim 1 performs the same steps as the medium of Claim 17, and Claim 17 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 1 by the teachings of Acharya.
Acharya further teaches:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations (Fig. 5; ¶ 0076-0077; ¶ 0079; and ¶ 0082.).
With regards to Claim 18, Acharya teaches the medium of Claim 17 as referenced above. The method of Claim 2 performs the same steps as the medium of Claim 18, and Claim 18 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 2 by the teachings of Acharya.
With regards to Claim 20, Acharya teaches the medium of Claim 17 as referenced above. The method of Claim 4 performs the same steps as the medium of Claim 20, and Claim 20 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 4 by the teachings of Acharya.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acharya, and further in view of Udayaadithya et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 11,010,232 B2), hereinafter “Udayaadithya.”
With regards to Claim 3, Acharya teaches the method of Claim 2 as referenced above. Acharya does not explicitly teach:
wherein the error code is a fixed value predetermined by a creator of the computer application at a time in which the computer application was created in accordance with the method of Claim 2.
However, Udayaadithya teaches:
wherein the error code is a fixed value predetermined by a creator of the computer application at a time in which the computer application was created (col. 6, lines 40-43.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Acharya with the use of fixed codes created at a design time such as, e.g., “time out” and “memory full” as taught by Udayaadithya because combining prior art elements (a user interface showing various error-based details – Acharya: Fig. 3A and Acharya: ¶ 0063; and fixed error codes) according to known methods can be performed to yield predictable results (providing known means for conveying various types of data associated with an error condition).
With regards to Claim 14, Acharya teaches the device of Claim 13 as referenced above. The method of Claim 3 performs the same steps as the device of Claim 14, and Claim 14 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 3 by the teachings of Acharya in view of Udayaadithya.
With regards to Claim 19, Acharya teaches the medium of Claim 18 as referenced above. The method of Claim 3 performs the same steps as the medium of Claim 19, and Claim 19 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 3 by the teachings of Acharya in view of Udayaadithya.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Agrawal et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 12,487,876); teaching computer-implemented systems and methods including language models for explaining and resolving code errors. A computer-implemented method may include: receiving or accessing a log comprising an error message, the error message indicating an error in code; determining the error message from the log; determining a context associated with the error; generating a prompt for a large language model (“LLM”), the prompt comprising at least: the error message, and the context associated with the error; transmitting the prompt to the LLM; and receiving an output from the LLM in response to the prompt, the output comprising at least: an explanation of the error message, and a suggested fix for the error.
Lavi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2026/0023638 A1); teaching systems and methods for automated incident investigation. Anomaly detection is used to identify anomalies in incident data (e.g., alerts, changes, metrics, logs, and/or system health), and the identified anomalies are converted into facts (or textual prompt inputs for a large language model (“LLM”)). A troubleshooting or diagnostic system is run on the anomalies to provide additional facts to identify a root cause of an incident. The facts from the diagnostics, the facts from the anomaly detections are entered into a consolidated explainer that generates a summary of what happened, what is a likely cause, and what to do next to resolve the issue. In examples, anomaly enrichment data including a time correlation result, a weighted list of abnormal transaction patterns, a list of abnormal trace patterns, a list of exception patterns, a difference pattern, and/or region data are input as further facts to enhance the incident investigation process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH KUDIRKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5pm ET.
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.
/JOSEPH R KUDIRKA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114
