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
The following action is in response to the communication(s) received on 02/18/2026:
Claims 1, 8, and 15, and 39 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 02/18/2026 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 Prong 2:
Applicant asserts that the amendment recites receiving raw time series data generated from internet traffic between APIs and remote devices and computing deviation scores based on the traffic-derived metric data (p.10 ¶2). Examiner respectfully submits that the monitoring performance, as currently recited, is merely an abstract idea of monitoring data in which is performed in the environment pertaining to internet traffic data. Additionally, aggregating, determining, and categorizing are abstract ideas; abstract ideas are not analyzed in Step 2A Prong 2.
Applicant further asserts that the features define a concrete monitoring technique as it yields “operational outputs, rather than merely stating a desired result” (p.10 ¶2). Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the claims do not recite sufficient architecture in the method which executes actions representing a technology for computing systems regarding the resulting data from the monitoring technique.
Applicant further asserts that claim 1 addresses a technological problem in distributed computing systems which require serving large numbers of remote devices (p.10 ¶3). Examiner respectfully submits that the claims merely recite the categorization of data and do not sufficiently recite serving internet traffic from the result of the monitoring technique. Thus, the claims remain directed to the abstract ideas.
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;
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..., 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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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