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 § 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 1-15,17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind and mathematical concepts – mathematical calculations.
Regarding claim 1, with the exception of the recitation of the limitations ‘a processor; memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts’, the claim is directed to mental processes.
The limitations ‘selecting a single item from the several items to include in a first set, wherein the first set is unidimensional; selecting remaining items in the several items to include in a second set, such that a pair of two disjoint sets are created; repeating acts of selecting the single item and selecting the remaining items until each item in the several items has been included in a unidimensional set, such that multiple pairs of disjoint sets are created for the transaction; repeating acts of obtaining the transaction, selecting the single item, selecting the remaining items, and repeating the acts for multiple transactions in the computer- readable database, such that multiple disjoint sets are created for each transaction in the multiple transactions; identifying a plurality of association rules for use in troubleshooting in the computing system, the plurality of association rules identified based upon the plurality of pairs of disjoint sets of items, wherein each association rule maps the second set to the first set of each pair of the disjoint sets; identifying an association rule from the association rules based upon the at least one item, wherein the association rules is identified by ranking a subset of the association rules identified based upon the at least one items, wherein the association rule maps the at least one item to another item that is representative of a second component in the computing system’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘a processor; memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements: ‘subsequent to identifying the plurality of association rules, receiving an incident report including at least one item that is representative of a first component in the computing system’, are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), in this case data gathering ; transmitting data to a computing device based upon the identified association rule, wherein the data indicates that the second component in the computing system is a root cause of an error associated with the first component in the computing system specified in the incident report’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements: ‘obtaining a transaction from a computer-readable database, wherein the transaction includes several items, and further wherein the several items are representative of components in a computing system that are reporting information related to an incident being captured in a mined incident report, wherein the computing system is accessible to computing devices by way of network connections’ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)) - iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation ‘the data transmitted to the computing device comprises a recommendation to an engineer to inspect the second component in the computing system’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 3, the limitation ‘identifying the plurality of association rules comprises: computing a confidence value for the association rule’ is a mental process - a concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion; and comparing the confidence value with a threshold, wherein the association rule is included in the plurality of association rules based upon the confidence value being greater than the threshold’ is a mental process - a concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion as well as a mathematical process of comparing a number to a threshold value.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation ‘identifying the plurality of association rules comprises: computing a support value for the association rule; and comparing the support value with a threshold, wherein the association rule is included in the plurality of association rules based upon the confidence value being greater than the threshold’ is mathematical concept – mathematical calculations and a mental process - a concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation ‘the association rule is identified from the association rules based upon the support value computed for the association rule’ is a mental process - a concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation ‘further comprising: computing a value for lift for the association rule, wherein the association rule is identified from the association rules based upon the value for lift computed for the association rule’ is mathematical concept – mathematical calculations and a mental process - a concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation ‘further comprising: computing a value for conviction for the association rule, wherein the association rule is identified from the association rules based upon the value for conviction computed for the association rule’ is mathematical concept – mathematical calculations and a mental process - a concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation ‘further comprising: computing a value for relevance for the association rule, wherein the value for relevance is based upon the at least one item being included in the association rule, and further wherein the association rule is identified from the association rules based upon the value for relevance computed for the association rule’ is mathematical concept – mathematical calculations and a mental process - a concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation ‘wherein there are between 100,000 and 2,000,000 transactions in the multiple transactions’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), in this case data gathering.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation ‘the data transmitted to the computing device causes the second component to be restarted’ is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is directed to mental processes.
The limitation ‘identifying association rules from amongst several association rules based upon the incident report, wherein the association rules are identified based upon confidence values computed for the association rules, wherein each association rule in the association rules maps a respective set of items to a respective single item, wherein sets of items in the several association rules include at least one item that is also included in the several items of the incident report’ is a mental process – a concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘obtaining an incident report, wherein the incident report includes several items that are representative of components of the cloud computing system that are reporting incidents during a window of time; based upon the identified association rules, transmitting a notification to a computing device of a technician for the cloud computing system, wherein the notification identifies the single items in the identified association rules as potential causes of the incidents reported by the components of the cloud computing system’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements: ‘obtaining an incident report, wherein the incident report includes several items that are representative of components of the cloud computing system that are reporting incidents during a window of time; based upon the identified association rules, transmitting a notification to a computing device of a technician for the cloud computing system, the notification identifies the single items in the identified association rules as potential causes of the incidents reported by the components of the cloud computing system’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 12, the limitation ‘there are between 100,000 and 200,000 association rules in the several association rules’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 13, the limitation ‘generating the association rules based upon transactions in a database, wherein the transactions are representative of incident reports, and further wherein the transactions include items that are representative of numerous components of the cloud computing system’ is a mental process - a concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion of determining the number of transactions.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation ‘generating the association rules comprises: obtaining a transaction from the database, wherein the transaction includes several items, and further wherein the several items are representative of several components in the cloud computing system that are reporting information related to an incident being captured in a mined incident report - is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)) - iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
selecting a single item from the several items to include in a first set, wherein the first set is unidimensional; selecting remaining items in the several items to include in a second set, such that a pair of two disjoint sets are created; repeating acts of selecting the single item and selecting the remaining items until each item in the several items has been included in a unidimensional set, such that multiple pairs of disjoint sets are created for the transaction; repeating acts of obtaining the transaction, selecting the single item, selecting the remaining items, and repeating the acts for multiple transactions in the computer-readable database, such that multiple pairs of disjoint sets are created for each transaction in the multiple transactions, and further such that a plurality of pairs of disjoint sets of items are created, wherein the association rules are generated based upon the plurality of pairs of disjoint sets of items’ - is a mental process – a concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation ‘the association rules are further identified based upon support values computed for the association rules’ is a mathematical concept – mathematical calculations.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation ‘wherein the association rules are further identified based upon lift scores computed for the association rules’ is a mathematical concept – mathematical calculations.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation ‘wherein the association rules are further identified based upon conviction values computed for the association rules’ is a mathematical concept – mathematical calculations.
Regarding claim 19, with the exception of the recitation of the limitations ‘A computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform acts’, the claim is directed to mental processes.
The limitations ‘selecting a single item from the several items to include in a first set, wherein the first set is unidimensional; selecting remaining items in the several items to include in a second set, such that a pair of two disjoint sets are created; repeating acts of selecting the single item and selecting the remaining items until each item in the several items has been included in a unidimensional set, such that multiple pairs of disjoint sets are created for the transaction; repeating acts of obtaining the transaction, selecting the single item, selecting the remaining items, and repeating the acts for multiple transactions in the computer- readable database, such that multiple disjoint sets are created for each transaction in the multiple transactions, and further such that a plurality of pairs of disjoint sets of items are created; identifying a plurality of association rules for use in troubleshooting in the computing system, the plurality of association rules identified based upon the plurality of pairs of disjoint sets of items, wherein each association rule maps the second set to the first set of each pair of the disjoint sets; identifying an association rule from the association rules based upon the at least one item, wherein the association rule is identified by ranking a subset of the association rules identified based upon the at least one item, wherein the association rule maps the at least one item to another item that is representative of a second component in the computing system’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘A computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform acts’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements: ‘subsequent to identifying the plurality of association rules, receiving an incident report including at least one item that is representative of a first component in the computing system’, are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), in this case data gathering ; transmitting data to a computing device based upon the identified association rule, wherein the data indicates that the second component in the computing system is a root cause of an error associated with the first component in the computing system specified in the incident report’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements: ‘obtaining a transaction from a computer-readable database, wherein the transaction includes several items, and further wherein the several items are representative of components in a computing system that are reporting information related to an incident being captured in a mined incident report, the computing system is accessible to computing devices by way of network connections’ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)) - iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation ‘wherein the data transmitted to the computing device comprises a recommendation to an engineer to inspect the second component in the computing system’ is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 21, the limitation ‘wherein there are between 100,000 and 2,000,000 transactions in the multiple transactions’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), in this case data gathering.
There is no prior art rejection for claims 11-15,17,18. There is no prior art rejection for claims 1-10,19-21 because of the inclusion of the following limitations: ‘d) repeating acts b) and c) until each item in the several items has been included in a unidimensional set, such that multiple disjoint sets are created for the transaction; e) repeating acts a)-d) for multiple transactions in the computer- readable database, such that multiple disjoint sets are created for each transaction in the multiple transactions, and further such that a plurality of pairs of disjoint sets of items are created; g) subsequent to identifying the plurality of association rules, receiving at least one item that is representative of a first component in the computing system; h) identifying an association rule from the association rules based upon the at least one item, wherein the association rule maps the at least one item to another item that is representative of a second component in the computing system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/08/2025 have been fully considered. The 101 – abstract idea rejection still stands. Concerning Applicant’s arguments of the 101-abstract idea, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea. There are only certain limitations that are considered to be mental processes. Please see the above rejection as to those limitations. Those limitations are still able to be performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. Despite, the number of transactions and association rules these limitations are able to performed in the human mind.
Concerning the arguments of improving the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field, the arguments are not persuasive. The recited limitations are viewed to be either mental processes, generic computer components, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or well-understood, routine, conventional activities. The limitations are not tied to anything specific beyond generic computer components. The limitations are not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Please see the above rejection as to how the limitations are rejected.
Conclusion
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 Yolanda L Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-3653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30 am - 4 pm).
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.
/Yolanda L Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113