DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
\Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-14, 16-18, 21-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amended claims recite language comprising the limitation of returning the device to an error-free functioning state. The examiner cannot find support for such language in the Specification. The examiner suggests the applicant cite support for such language in the next action. This also applies to such language in the new claims. Claims 23-24 recite a desired response that does this language, and the examiner cannot find support for the response to actuate the language. Also, claim 25 recites “in absence of available data”. The examiner also does not find support for this limitation as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-14, 16-18, 21-25
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-14, 16-18, 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. However, the claimed invention is directed to performing statistical/mathematical calculations without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of the claims regarding subject matter eligibility in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG):
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis
Step 1: Do the Claims Specify a Statutory Category?
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 18, 21-25 describe a method, claims 7-8, 10-11 describe a device, claim 12 describes a system, and claims 13-14, 16-17 describe a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 1-3, 5-6, 18, 21-25
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Independent claim 1 recites the method/steps of retrieving event records (data); determining a risk factor associated with the data, determining a baseline associated with the data; generating an event ID associated with the data; determining a probability of occurrence of an event; determining a baseline based on the probability; determining a priority associated the events; determining the root cause based on the risk category and priority; wherein determining the risk category comprises determining a severity criteria; determining a risk score; identifying information from a variable portion. The above steps are a synopsis of the limitations as claimed. The limitations describe processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., use of a processor or a generic computer). That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The limitations involve making determinations of the collected event information in order to determine a further data results, such as risk scores and priority data, etc. Such data collection and evaluation of data can be performed by a human and recites a mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the practical performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The method as claimed can be performed by a human and recites a mental process. An example of claims that recite mental processes cited in the October 2019 Update to the 2019 PEG includes “a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.” Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A, B, and C).
As a whole, the limitations describe processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., use of a database, display, and a processor). That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind using a computer as a tool. There is no description of what the resolution entails. Is it a code deletion, addition, transformation, a restart, or just an output recommending a solution? Generic resolution of an error could be interpreted to be anything without the proper detail. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). “Resolving” is interpreted “applying it” with no further detail.
The applicant has previously amended the claims to recite wherein the event records include complex information that is not readable or understandable by a user, such that the event records cannot be annotated manually to distinguish between normal and anomalous events occurring in the device. The examiner interprets this as mere types of data being collected as the data being not understandable by the user only means the user does not have the knowledge to understand the textual description that is later recited in the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have the knowledge. The applicant may be inferring the complex data is only understandable using a specific computing component, but the claim is not interpreted as such as written. As for the “cannot be annotated manually” step, the examiner cannot find a clear definition of what that entails. Possible interpretations are the collected data is not editable, or a user must use a computer as a tool to annotate. Again, further clarification is needed.
The applicant has amended the claims to recite wherein the resolving comprises to return the device to an error-free functioning state. As the examiner explains in the above USC 112 rejection, there is no detail on what this return comprises nor how it is done. As so, the examiner interprets the amendment as a generic “apply it” type of language.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 18, 25 recited more mental evaluations of data of further determining and identifying and types of data.
Claim 3 recites the generation of a matrix of data, but not how it generated as to exclude a mere mental process.
Claim 21 cites outputting the determined root cause. As stated above:
An example of claims that recite mental processes cited in the October 2019 Update to the 2019 PEG includes “a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.”
Claim 22 recites wherein the error-free function state includes normal behavior of the device associated with the set of events that occur during the normal functioning of the device. The examiner again refers to the USC 112 rejection and interprets this claim as further “apply it” language in the absence of what is being transformed or improved on the device.
Claims 23-24 recites actuating a response to achieve the new language. The examiner again refers to the USC 112 rejection and interprets this claim as further “apply it” language in the absence of what is being transformed or improved on the device.
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
In the instant case, as detailed in the analysis for Step 2A-Prong 2, claim 1 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea. The device and database recited in the claim describe a generic computer processor and/or computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
The applicant has amended the claims to cite wherein the device is a medical imaging device. The claims only recite wherein the retrieved event records are associated with the device, that is, the device as an imaging device itself does not have any bearing on the claimed limitations. One could replace the term of an “imaging device” with practically any device and the claims would still make sense. If the device being an imaging device is integral to the claimed process, then integral language should be included, such as changes to the imaging device resultant from the process of the claims. This suggestion goes along with the prior suggestions of detailing the claimed “resolutions” of the device determined by the process.
The applicant also has amended the claims to cite a processor and bus is required to distinguish between normal and anomalous events; however, the applicant has not cited any detail on how the processor is required and/or how the processer processes the determination. As claimed, the examiner interprets the claim to merely use a generic processor and bus to perform a practical mental process with the processor as a tool. The applicant is referred to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, where a computer can be recited and still recite a mental process.
The applicant has also amended the claims to cite wherein the database is of an electronic data storage of a cloud processing environment. The examiner interprets this as merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP2106.04(d)I.
The limitations pertaining to collecting and identifying information, and determining results, and generically “applying” a resolution describe insignificant extra-solution activity and are written at a high level in a generic manner without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. Therefore, these limitations recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas defined in the claim.
As discussed above in the Step 2A - Prong 2 analysis regarding integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the limitations, as currently written, describe data evaluations that can be performed by a human (i.e., as a mental process and/or by using pen/paper) and are therefore directed to the identified judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer component, or utilizing generic artificial intelligence technology to apply the identified judicial exception, does not describe an inventive concept.
Conclusion
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 1-3, 5-6, 18 recite and are directed to abstract ideas and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea(s). Claims 1-3, 5-6, 18, 21-25 are therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 7-8, 10-11
Claims 7-8, 10-11 contain limitations for a device with processing units and a memory which implement the limitations for the methods specified in claims 1-3, 5-6, 18, respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1, Step 2A – Prong 2, and Step 2B for claims 7-8, 10-11 is similar to that presented above for claims 1-3, 5-6, 18.
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 7-8, 10-11 recite and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract ideas(s). Claims 7-8, 10-11 are therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 12
Claim 12 contain limitations for a system and servers which implement the limitations for the methods specified in claims 1-3, 5-6, 18, respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1, Step 2A – Prong 2, and Step 2B for claim 12 is similar to that presented above for claims 1-3, 5-6, 18.
In light of the above, the limitations in claim 12 recite and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract ideas(s). Claim 12 is therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 13-14, 16-17
Claims 13-14, 16-17 contain limitations for a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium which are similar to the limitations for the methods specified in claims 1-3, 5-6, 18, respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1 and Step 2A – Prong 2 for claims 13-14, 16-17 is similar to that presented above for claims 1-3, 5-6, 18.
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Claim 13 recites the additional elements of a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.” The computer-readable storage medium and server cited in the claim describe generic computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception.
Conclusion
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 23-33 recite and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract ideas(s). Claims 13-14, 16-17 are therefore not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has amended and has argued the new language overcomes the USC 101 rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the above rejections, the examiner cannot find support for the new language and has issued a USC 112 rejection. Without proper detail, one cannot determine how the device is returned to an error-free state nor what is transformed by this return. This also applies the USC 101 rejection, in that, without proper transforming details, one can interpret the new language as more “apply it” language such as merely interpreting the language as “resolving the device to error-free state.” Support and details are needed to overcome the rejections.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See citations in prior Office Actions.
6. 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 CHRISTOPHER S MCCARTHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571)272-3655. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S MCCARTHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights