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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/18/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1, 8, 15, and 21-39 are pending.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered, but are not fully persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the claims, as directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments in Step 2A Prong1:
Applicant asserts that the claimed invention cannot be performed in the human mind, given that it recites
“passing smoothed time-series metric data derived from internet traffic, a pilot signal identifying a target API, and homogeneous variables associated with each of a plurality of APIs into a trained LSTM prediction model that is configured to model metrics of the plurality of APIs wherein different combinations of weights of the trained LSTM prediction model are optimized for different APIs of the plurality of APIs; passing the LSTM output through a separate neural network to generate a predicted pilot signal and gating further processing on a match between the predicted pilot signal and the input pilot signal; transforming predicted smoothed metric data back into a predicted raw metric value; computing deviation scores by comparing predicted raw and actual raw metrics; and aggregating those deviation scores across an API family before categorizing anomaly conditions.”
Additionally, Applicant further asserts that the claimed invention is in the context of raw time series metric data associated with interactions between a plurality of APIs and a plurality of remote devices. (p.9 last ¶-p.10 ¶1). Examiner respectfully disagrees; the context of the data being interactions between APIs and remote devices are merely generally linked to the identified abstract idea of determining a match of between the pilot signal and the predicted pilot signal and categorizing anomaly conditions. In other words, the claimed invention merely generates a prediction and compares the prediction with the actual answer and categorizing an anomaly type, merely to be performed by a computer (via LSTMs; MPEP 2106.05(f)) in the context of the data interactions of the multiple devices (via remote devices; MPEP 2106.05(h)) and insignificant extra-solution activity of data transfer (via passing the network outputs; MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments in Step 2A Prong 2:
Applicant asserts that the amended claim 1 recites a practical application of the abstract idea, given that it uses a specific LSTM optimized for different APIs with a separate neural network as supported by the Specification via the “weights within the model are optimized such that different combinations may cater to different APIs” (p.11 ¶1-2). Examiner respectfully submits that each model recited in the claimed invention are merely tools to perform the identified abstract ideas of identifying the match of the pilot signals (by the separate neural network) and generating the predicted pilot signals (by the LSTM). Thus, the improvement is not directed towards training of a neural network and rather remains directed towards the identified abstract ideas.
Applicant further asserts that claims 8 and 15 and their respective dependent claims are eligible in view of the arguments presented above, but are moot in view of the responses given above.
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, 8, 15, and 21-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites method, thus a process, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter (Step 1). However, Claim 1 further recites:
transforming... the raw time series metric data into smoothed time series metric data using moving average function, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
generate a first prediction output including a predicted smoothed metric data, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
model metrics of the plurality of APIs… which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
generate a predicted pilot signal..., which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
determining whether the predicted pilot signal by the neural network matched the pilot signal, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
transforming the predicted smoothed time series metric data into a predicted raw time series metric value in response to a match between the predicted pilot signal and the pilot signal, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
comparing the predicted raw time series metric value with the raw time series metric data to compute a deviation score in response to the match, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
aggregating deviation scores across the plurality of APIs, which is a mathematical concept;
determining, based on the aggregated deviation scores, an anomaly condition for each of the plurality of APIs, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind;
and categorizing a performance of the API family based on the anomaly conditions, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements consist of:
…for monitoring performance of an application programming interface (API) family comprising a plurality of APIs via anomaly detection, which merely specifies the particular field of use or particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to be performed, which by MPEP 2106.05(h) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
receiving... raw time series metric data associated with request and response interactions for the plurality of APIs provided by a remote server, the raw time series metric data being generated from internet traffic between the plurality of APIs and a plurality of remote devices in communication with the remote server, which is merely an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, which by MPEP 2106.05(g) cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application;
…wherein the raw time series metric data includes at least one or more of an API response time, API errors per time period, and API calls per time period, which merely specifies the particular field of use or particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to be performed, which by MPEP 2106.05(h) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
passing the smoothed time series metric data, a pilot signal to identify a target API, and one or more homogeneous variables associated with each of the plurality of APIs..., which is merely an insignificant extra-solution activity of data transfer, which by MPEP 2106.05(g) cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application;
...into a trained Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) prediction model...; wherein the trained LSTM prediction model is configured to… wherein different combinations of weights of the trained LSTM prediction model are optimized for different APIs for the plurality of APIs, as the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is not more than instructions to "apply it" on a computer, which by MPEP 2106.05(f) cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application;
wherein the one or more homogenous variables includes at least one or more of a request size associated with an API, a request key associated with an API, a response size associated with an API, and a response key associated with an API, which merely specifies the particular field of use or particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to be performed, which by MPEP 2106.05(h) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
passing the first prediction output..., which is merely an insignificant extra-solution activity of data transfer, which by MPEP 2106.05(g) cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application;
...through a neural network that is separate from the LSTM prediction model..., as the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is not more than instructions to "apply it" on a computer, which by MPEP 2106.05(f) cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because the particular field of use or particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), implementation on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)),and the activity of data gathering/transfer(MPEP 2106.05(g)) cannot provide significantly more, as storing and retrieving information in memory is well understood, routine, and conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)) as receiving or transmitting data over a network is well understood, routine, and conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)) and the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 21, dependent upon Claim 1, further recites
weighting the deviation scores across the plurality of APIs when determining whether the raw time series metric data represents the anomalous condition, which is a mathematical concept.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any new additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 22, dependent upon Claim 1, further recites
using hyper parameter tuning to determine parameters, which is a mathematical concept.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements consist of:
associated with the LSTM prediction model and the neural network, which merely specifies the particular field of use or particular technological environment in which the abstract idea is to be performed, which by MPEP 2106.05(h) cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
Further, under Step 2B, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because the particular field of use or particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 23, dependent upon Claim 22, further recites
a Bayesian optimization is used in determining the parameters, which is a mathematical concept.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any new additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 24, dependent upon Claim 1, further recites no additional abstract ideas. However:
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements consist of:
intercepting traffic transmitted between the remote server and the plurality of remote devices to obtain the raw time series metric data, which is merely a detail of an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, which by MPEP 2106.05(g) cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
Further, under Step 2B, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because the activity of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)) cannot provide significantly more, as storing and retrieving information in memory is well understood, routine, and conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 25, dependent upon Claim 1, further recites
...applies a sliding window to generate the first predicted output, which is a mathematical concept;
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements consist of:
the LSTM prediction model, as the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is not more than instructions to "apply it" on a computer, which by MPEP 2106.05(f) cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
Further, under Step 2B, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 26, dependent upon Claim 1, further recites no additional abstract ideas. However:
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements consist of:
using another LSTM predicted model, wherein the LSTM predicted model is associated with a first API and wherein the another LSTM predicted model is associated with a second API, as the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is not more than instructions to "apply it" on a computer, which by MPEP 2106.05(f) cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
Further, under Step 2B, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 39, dependent upon Claim 1, further recites
discarding the raw time metric data in response to a mismatch between the predicted pilot signal and the pilot signal, which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any new additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claims 8 and 27-32 recite a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, thus an article of manufacture, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, Claims 8 and 27-32 further recite having embodied thereon a program, the program being executable by a processor to perform precisely the methods of Claims 1 and 21-26. Therefore, Step 2A Prong 1 analysis remains the same. As for Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: performance on a computer cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B) (MPEP 2106.05(f)), Claims 8 and 27-32 are rejected as subject-matter ineligible for reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1 and 21-26.
Claims 15 and 33-38 recite a system, thus an article of manufacture, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, Claim 15 and 33-38 further recite a server including a memory and a processor; and one or more modules stored in the memory and executed by the processor to perform precisely the methods of Claims 1 and 21-26. Therefore, Step 2A Prong 1 analysis remains the same. As for Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: performance on a computer cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B) (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claims 15 and 33-38 are rejected as subject-matter ineligible for reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1 and 21-26.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 8, 15, and 21-39 have been searched, but no prior art which renders the independent claims obvious have been uncovered.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEP HAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1346. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached on (571) 272-3719. 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.
/J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/KAKALI CHAKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights