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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a final rejection. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 07/15/2025 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Continuation
This application is a continuation of U.S. application 17/645,595 (filed 12/22/2021). See MPEP §201.08. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Applications. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Applications are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 07/08/2026. Amending claims 1, 8-9, and 10.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in light of the amendments.
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 112b will be withdrawn.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 102/103- No art rejection has been put forth in the rejection for the reason found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues (Pages 11-12 of the remarks): with regard to Step 2A, Prong One
For at least the following reasons, the claims reflect an improvement in the
functioning of a computer, and thus are eligible in accordance with the 2024 Guidance
Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence
("Guidance"), Section Ill, A, 2. In particular, claim 1 recites, inter alia, "generating,
based on the first, second, and third information, a model and an alert to an incident
owner ... , wherein the model determines a code change to avoid the downtime
resulting from the incident," "predicting, by the updated trained machine-learning based model, a cause of the reported incident based on the learned association, wherein the prediction is a prediction that the reported incident will result in downtime of the computer system," and "automatically implementing the code change, without user input, based on the prediction, thereby reducing the downtime of the computer system."
At least these claim recitations provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer-e.g., avoiding and reducing downtime of a computer system, as claim 1 specifically recites.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
First, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for assess a risk for a proposed modification to a system or troubleshoot an incident in the system" (fig. 4). As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 9, and 16 recites the abstract idea of assess a risk for a proposed modification to a system or troubleshoot an incident in the system.
Furthermore, the claim limitations are also directed towards directed to generate an alert to an incident owner providing information and assess a risk for a proposed modification to a system or troubleshoot an incident in the system. Which is “Commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contract; legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations” and “fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk” expressly categorized under a certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recites the additional limitation a system, a trained machine learning based model, a memory, one or more processors, and a non-transitory. The additional elements of a “a trained machine learning based model” are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of a “a trained machine learning model”. This language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim limitations “data processing system,” “communications controller,” and “data storage unit” were generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “machine learning model” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea. All of these additional elements are not significantly more because these, again, are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer.
The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements 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.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO).
Further, with regard to mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, 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.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Applicant argues (Pages 12-13 of the remarks): with regard to Step 2B
Notwithstanding the above, and considering the claim as a whole, claim 1 recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering the elements both individually and in combination, consistent with the general rule that patent claims must be considered as a whole.
…
That claim 1 recites significantly more is further indicated by the absence of any prior-art rejection in the Office Action. As reflected at least in paragraphs 30-31 and 47-48 of the Specification, the claims provide an improved technological result over conventional industry practice.
Because independent claims 9 and 16 include similar recitations, the claims also recite significantly more than any abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1, 9, and 16, as well as their dependent claims, are eligible under Section 101. Therefore, for at least these reasons, Applicant requests withdrawal of the Section 101 rejection, and the allowance of claims 1-20.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
First, regarding applicant argument “claim 1 recites significantly more is further indicated by the absence of any prior-art rejection in the Office Action”. This argument is not persuasive because the test under Alice is not a matter of evidence but rather a test of law, the nonobviousness or novelty of those limitations would not provide an indication that those limitations are “something more”. In other words, nonobviousness or novelty is not an indicia of eligibility – it is not an indicia that limitations provide “something more”.
Second, The Alice framework, step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 1, 9, and 16 do not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. Claims 1, 9, and 16 include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include “a system, a trained machine learning based model, a memory, one or more processors, and a non-transitory”
Examiner asserts that a system, a trained machine learning based model, a memory, one or more processors, and a non-transitory are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions. (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.
In addition, fig. 1, of the specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
The computing elements with a computing device is recited at high level of generality (e.g. a generic device performing a generic computer function of processing data). Thus, this step is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a generic computer. In addition, using a processor to process data has been well-understood routing, conventional activity in the industry for many years.
Generic computer features, such as system or storage, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These limitations merely describe implementation for the invention using elements of a general-purpose system, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. Inc., 793 F .3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1791 (Federal Circuit 2015).
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of Application No. 17/645,595 (filed , now U.S. Patent No. 12,387,160). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims in each application recite substantially similar limitations directed to a process for predicting a cause of the classified incident based on different information.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 in the referenced patent and claim 1 recited substantially similar limitation. however, claim 1 in the referenced patent is more narrow. The breadth of claim 1 of the instant application would read on the more narrow claim 1 of the referenced patent. Thus claim 1 in the instant application is an obvious variant of claim 1 in the reference application.
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 non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-8 are directed toward a method (process). Claims 9-15 are directed toward a system (machine). Claims 16-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (machine). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-20 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claims 9, and 16 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. A method for reducing downtime of a computer system using a trained machine-learning based model, the method comprising, performing by one or more processors, operations including:
receiving first information, second information, and third information from a change owner, wherein the first information includes a description of a change proposed to the computer system and an intended outcome of the change proposed, wherein the change proposed to the computer system includes modification of at least one of a hardware or software component of the computer system, wherein the second information includes justification of the change proposed in view of a risk of an incident associated with the change proposed, wherein the incident results in downtime of the computer system, and wherein the third information includes an implementation plan for the change proposed;
generating, based on the first, second, and third information, a model and an alert to an incident owner providing the description, intended outcome, risk, justification, and implementation plan of the change proposed to the computer system, wherein the model determines a code change to avoid the downtime resulting from the incident;
receiving, based on the alert, confirmation from the incident owner confirming a relationship between the change proposed and the risk;
updating, based on the confirmation, the trained machine-learning based model to learn an association between the change proposed and the incident;
receiving a reported incident in the computer system;
predicting, by the updated trained machine-learning based model, a cause of the reported incident based on the learned association, wherein the prediction is a prediction that the reported incident will result in downtime of the computer system; and
automatically implementing the code change, without user input, based on the prediction, thereby reducing the downtime of the computer system.
The Applicant's Specification titled " SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IMPROVING QUALITY OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MODEL" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for assess a risk for a proposed modification to a system or troubleshoot an incident in the system" (fig. 4). As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 9, and 16 recites the abstract idea of assess a risk for a proposed modification to a system or troubleshoot an incident in the system.
Furthermore, the claim limitations are also directed towards directed to generate an alert to an incident owner providing information and assess a risk for a proposed modification to a system or troubleshoot an incident in the system. Which is “Commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contract; legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations” and “fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk” expressly categorized under a certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 (similarly claims 10, and 17) wherein the operations further include: receiving, based on the reported incident and the predicted cause, a prediction confirmation from at least one of the incident owner or the change owner confirming a relationship between the predicted cause and the reported incident; and updating, based on the prediction confirmation, the trained machine-learning based model to learn the association between the change and the incident.
claim 3 (similarly claims 11, and 18) wherein the temporal alignment is a 48 hour window between the change and the incident.
claim 4 (similarly claim 12) wherein the temporal alignment is a 48 hour window between the change and the incident.
claim 5 (similarly claims 13 and 19) wherein the operations are performed by using one or more Application Programming Interface (API) interactions.
claim 6 (similarly claims 14, and 20) wherein the generated alert provides extracted keywords from at least one of the description, the intended outcome, the risk, the justification, or the implementation plan of the change proposed.
claim 7 (similarly claim 15) wherein the association between the change and the incident provides a probability that the incident is caused by the change.
claim 8 wherein the change proposed includes a modification of a team member of the computer system.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 9, and 16.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-20 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claim 9 (similarly claims 1 and 16) include the following bolded additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 11. A computer-implemented system for reducing downtime of a computer system using a trained machine-learning based model, a memory, one or more processor,
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, and 9 (claim 16 further recite a non-transitory) pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of a system, a trained machine learning based model, a memory, one or more processors, and a non-transitory. The additional elements of a “a trained machine learning based model”. This language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim limitations “data processing system,” “communications controller,” and “data storage unit” were generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “a trained machine learning based model” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea. which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, the computing platform includes generic processors, memories, and communication interfaces. Figure 6 of the specification detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, 9, and 16 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for generate an alert to an incident owner providing information and assess a risk for a proposed modification to a system or troubleshoot an incident in the system and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention generate an alert to an incident owner providing information and assess a risk for a proposed modification to a system or troubleshoot an incident in the system. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 9, and 16 respectively, claims 5, 13, and 19 recite one or more application programming interface (API) but, these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 9, and 16, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of claims 1, 9, and 16 include a system, a trained machine learning based model, a memory, one or more processors, and a non-transitory. Further, claims 5, 13, and 19 recite one or more application programming interface (API). The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to generate an alert to an incident owner providing information and assess a risk for a proposed modification to a system or troubleshoot an incident in the system.
Claims 1-20 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, No art rejections has been put forth in the rejection.
Closest prior art to the invention include Polleri et al. US 2021/0081819: Chatbot for defining a machine learning (ML) solution, Guven et al. US 2017/0178038: Discovering linkages between changes and incidents in information technology systems, Poghosyan et al. US 2020/0183769: Methods and systems that detect and classify incidents and anomalous behavior using metric-data observations, and Sobran et al. US 2021/0157577: Vector embedding of relational code sets. None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, inter alia, teaches the claimed invention as detailed in independent claims, “receiving first information, second information, and third information from a change owner, wherein the first information includes a description of a change proposed to the computer system and an intended outcome of the change proposed, wherein the change proposed to the computer system includes modification of at least one of a hardware or software component of the computer system, wherein the second information includes justification of the change proposed in view of a risk of an incident associated with the change proposed, wherein the incident results in downtime of the computer system, and wherein the third information includes an implementation plan for the change proposed; generating, based on the first, second, and third information, a model and an alert to an incident owner providing the description, intended outcome, risk, justification, and implementation plan of the change proposed to the computer system”. The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-20 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patterson, Tom, and CPA Complex Solutions Executive. "The use of information technology in risk management." Complex Solutions Executive IBM Corporation (2015).
Lauritsen SM, Thiesson B, Jørgensen MJ, Riis AH, Espelund US, Weile JB, Lange J. The Framing of machine learning risk prediction models illustrated by evaluation of sepsis in general wards. NPJ digital medicine. 2021 Nov 15;4(1):158.
Rau et al. US 2023/0120977: Technology change confidence rating.
Rajagopalan et al. US 2022/0261732: Framework for early warning of domain-specific events.
Krishna et al. US 2022/0261711: System and method for intelligent contract guidance.
Bridges et al. US 2018/0373578: System and method for predictive technology incident reduction.
Peer et al. US 2018/0137443: Promotion artifact risk assessment.
Marcu et al. US 2018/0046956: Warning about steps that lead to an unsuccessful execution of a business process.
Zimmermann et al. US 2018/0027006: System and method for securing an enterprise computing environment.
Van Camp et al. US 2017/0097623: Method and apparatus for negating effects of continuous introduction of risk factors in determining the health of a process control system.
Zieder et al. US 2016/0239402: Software commit risk level.
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 HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm 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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights