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 .
Status
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 12/11/2025. Claims 1-5, 7-22 are pending. Claims 1-2, 20-22 are amended. No claims have been added. Claim 6 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. “Testing a monitored system to determine a value to perform incremental rule evaluation wherein not all input values are known at the start of rule evaluation for a rule-based system for root cause analysis of the monitored system is not the same as an abstract idea without anything significantly more, nor is it a mental process.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically the steps of selecting, determining a first rule set, and determining a second ruleset based on calculated values are computational or logical steps that do not inherently improve the computer's functionality, but rather use the computer as a tool to perform the analysis. Using a "rule condition table" to diagnose root causes is considered a known activity. Although the claim mentions reducing memory usage by freeing memory the practice of doing this was a known way of reducing memory usage and is not a technical improvement. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
The applicant has argued that the prior art does not teach the currently amended claimed invention. An updated prior art search was conducted and the previous 103 rejection has been updated.
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 1-5, 7-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-5, 7-20 are directed to a method, claim 21 is directed to a system, and claim 22 is directed to a computer program product. Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-22 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 21, 22, recite an incremental rule condition evaluation including receiving, performing, selecting, and determining data, constituting an abstract idea based on “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” related to personal behavior or interactions between individuals including social activities (see ¶ 17 medical decisions, ¶ 122 financial decisions). The claim(s) also recite a mental processes, as drafted, the claim recites the limitation of determining a ruleset which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind/with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting claim 21 reciting “a processor” and claim 22 reciting “a computer program” nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “a processor” language, the claim encompasses the user manually making rule determinations. The mere nominal recitation of a generic network appliance does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This limitation is a mental process. With the exception of the “processor” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass an abstract idea directed to a “Mental Process” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-20 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claim 6 will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 1, 21, 22, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is a method, comprising “a monitored system; memory.” Claim 21 is a system, comprising “a communication interface; a processor coupled to the communication interface and configured to: receive a first ruleset associated with a rule-based system from the communication interface… a monitored system; a memory…” Claim 22 is a computer program product “embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions for… a monitored system; memory…” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, select, determine data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim also employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-20 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 21, and 22 do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. As can be seen above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, Claim 1 is a method, comprising “a monitored system; memory.” Claim 21 is a system, comprising “a communication interface; a processor coupled to the communication interface and configured to: receive a first ruleset associated with a rule-based system from the communication interface… a monitored system; a memory…” Claim 22 is a computer program product “embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions for… a monitored system; memory…” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, select, determine data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-20 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-22 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 12-14, 20-22, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voit et al. (US 20160292581 A1) in view of Cheriton (US 20200081882 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 20140351185 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Voit teaches receiving a first ruleset associated with a rule-based system (¶ 11-12, discloses receiving a first group of data objects (rules). ¶ 20-21, disclose identifying a first set of rules. ¶ 61-62, 37, 28, 90);
performing incremental rule evaluation wherein not all input values are known at the start of rule evaluation (¶ 38, 81-83, discloses the use of an optimized rule evaluation program. ¶ 21, discloses evaluating rule dependencies. ¶ 43-45, discloses evaluating and identifying the rules of a dependency chain. ¶ 81, 21);
and, at least in part by: selecting a first input for which to determine a first new input value based at least in part on a cost-information gain score associated with the monitored system (¶ 21, 39, 40, discloses rules having an input and determining an input. ¶ 81-82, discloses the use of value checks. ¶ 16, 40, 43, 66, 68, discloses the cost of acquiring a data object. ¶ 65, 91-96.);
determining the first new value (¶ 21, discloses identifying rules that are not identified. ¶ 81, discloses the use of value checks. ¶ 65, 95-96);
and determining a second ruleset by removing from the first ruleset rules whose rule condition can no longer be true based on the first input value (¶ 104-106, there are one or more rules within the second set of rules that no longer have an input that depends on an output of at least one rule of the first set of rules. Upon positive determination, such rules are removed from the second set of rules, thereby reducing the second rule set by eliminating rules which are no longer affected, e.g. the reasoning engine preprocessor determines, in step (b), that rule R12 no longer has an input that depends on the output of RS and removes R12 from the second rule set. ¶ 21, 81).
Voit does not specifically teach a root cause analysis.
However, Cheriton teaches receiving a first ruleset associated with a rule-based system for root cause analysis of a monitored system wherein a rule condition table is a root cause table (¶ 40-42, 53, 114-115, discloses rule conditions. ¶ 65, 66, 70, 107, 112, discloses a root cause analysis of a monitored system. ¶ 101, 102, discloses the use of a root cause table).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voit to include/perform root cause analysis of a monitored system wherein a rule condition table is a root cause table, as taught/suggested by Cheriton. This known technique is applicable to the system of Voit as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to automatic rule processing and rule engine implementation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Cheriton would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Cheriton to the teachings of Voit would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such root cause analysis features into similar systems. Further, applying a root cause analysis of a monitored system wherein a rule condition table is a root cause table would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for identification of failure sources, moving beyond symptoms to resolve issues.
Voit does not specifically teach determining the first new input value based at least in part on testing the monitored system.
However, Cheriton teaches determining the first new input value based at least in part on testing the monitored system (¶ 122, 132, 199, 209, 217-218, 253-254, 276, discloses evaluating and determining a new input. ¶ 90, 104-106, 177, 178, disclose the use of unknown values.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voit to include/perform determining the first new input value based at least in part on testing the monitored system, as taught/suggested by Cheriton. This known technique is applicable to the system of Voit as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to automatic rule processing and rule engine implementation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Cheriton would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Cheriton to the teachings of Voit would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such testing analysis features into similar systems. Further, applying determining the first new input value based at least in part on testing the monitored system would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for testing to identify potential issues.
Voit does not specifically teach reducing memory usage for the rule-based system at least in part by freeing memory associated with the first ruleset.
However, Wang teaches reducing memory usage for the rule-based system at least in part by freeing memory associated with the first ruleset (¶ 12-13, 19-22, 48, 62, disclose using a reduced evaluated data set which results in reduced memory requirements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voit to include/perform d reducing memory usage for the rule-based system at least in part by freeing memory associated with the first ruleset, as taught/suggested by Wang. This known technique is applicable to the system of Voit as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to automatic rule processing and memory management. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Wang would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Wang to the teachings of Voit would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such memory reduction features into similar systems. Further, applying reducing memory usage for the rule-based system at least in part by freeing memory associated with the first ruleset would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in a more stable system.
Regarding claim 2, Voit teaches wherein performing incremental rule evaluation further comprises, in the event the first ruleset is not sufficiently reduced: selecting a second input for which to determine a second new value (¶ 104-106, discloses assigning and using reducing a second rule set); determining the second new value (¶ 104-106, discloses assigning and using reducing a second rule set leading to a new value); and determining a third ruleset by removing from the second ruleset rules whose rule condition can no longer be true based on the second input value (¶ 104-108, there are one or more rules within the second set of rules that no longer have an input that depends on an output of at least one rule of the first set of rules. Upon positive determination, such rules are removed from the second set of rules, thereby reducing the second rule set by eliminating rules which are no longer affected, e.g. the reasoning engine preprocessor determines, in step (b), that rule R12 no longer has an input that depends on the output of RS and removes R12 from the second rule set.).
Regarding claim 3, Voit teaches further comprising reporting the second ruleset (¶ 28, discloses reporting. ¶ 104-105 discloses the use of rulesets).
Regarding claim 4, Voit teaches outputting the second ruleset, at least in part by performing actions associated with the second ruleset (¶ 28, discloses performing actions. ¶ 104-105 discloses the use of rulesets. ¶ 94-98).
Regarding claim 5, Voit teaches outputting the second ruleset, at least in part by: receiving an additional input (¶ 21, discloses receiving additional input, ¶ 28, discloses performing actions. ¶ 104-105 discloses the use of rulesets, ¶ 94-98).
and applying actions of rules associated with the second ruleset whose condition cannot be determined to evaluate as false based at least in part on the additional input (¶ 21, discloses receiving additional input for each rule that is not identified, ¶ 28, discloses performing actions. ¶ 104-105 discloses the use of rulesets, ¶ 94-98, 53).
Regarding claim 8, Voit teaches wherein selecting the first input is based at least in part on the cost of determining the first input value (¶ 37-39, discloses the cost of data acquisition, ¶ 43-45, 66, 68, 81).
Regarding claim 12, Voit teaches wherein performing incremental rule evaluation further comprises reducing the first ruleset at least in part by filtering out rules based on their associated actions (¶ 66, discloses grouping. ¶ 101-107, there are one or more rules within the second set of rules that no longer have an input that depends on an output of at least one rule of the first set of rules. Upon positive determination, such rules are removed from the second set of rules, thereby reducing the second rule set by eliminating rules which are no longer affected, e.g. the reasoning engine preprocessor determines, in step (b), that rule R12 no longer has an input that depends on the output of RS and removes R12 from the second rule set. ¶ 112-113, discloses grouping and removing objects that are no longer required.)
Regarding claim 13, Voit teaches reducing the first ruleset prior to performing incremental rule evaluation, at least in part by receiving an already known input value and removing from the first ruleset rules whose rule condition can no longer be true based on the already known input value (¶ 66, discloses grouping. ¶ 101-107, there are one or more rules within the second set of rules that no longer have an input that depends on an output of at least one rule of the first set of rules. Upon positive determination, such rules are removed from the second set of rules, thereby reducing the second rule set by eliminating rules which are no longer affected, e.g. the reasoning engine preprocessor determines, in step (b), that rule R12 no longer has an input that depends on the output of RS and removes R12 from the second rule set. ¶ 112-113, discloses grouping and removing objects that are no longer required.)
Regarding claim 14, Voit teaches further comprising reducing the first ruleset prior to performing incremental rule evaluation, at least in part by receiving a hypothesis and removing from the first ruleset rules whose actions do not correspond to the hypothesis (¶ 38, discloses a hypothesis, ¶ 66, ¶ 101-108, there are one or more rules within the second set of rules that no longer have an input that depends on an output of at least one rule of the first set of rules. Upon positive determination, such rules are removed from the second set of rules, thereby reducing the second rule set by eliminating rules which are no longer affected, e.g. the reasoning engine preprocessor determines, in step (b), that rule R12 no longer has an input that depends on the output of RS and removes R12 from the second rule set. ¶ 112-113, discloses grouping and removing objects that are no longer required.)
Regarding claim 20, Voit teaches wherein determining the first new value is performed at evaluation time (¶ 81, discloses the use of fetching data based on a value. ¶ 49, discloses rule evaluation time, ¶ 53, 105-106, 113).
Regarding claim 21, Voit teaches
a communication interface; a processor coupled to the communication interface (¶ 26, 28, 37-40 discloses a processor, ¶ 37-40, 48-49, 53, 115-118, discloses an interface);
receive a first ruleset associated with a rule-based system from the communication interface (¶ 11-12, discloses receiving a first group of data objects (rules). ¶ 20-21, disclose identifying a first set of rules. ¶ 37-40, 48-49, 53, 115-118, discloses an interface, ¶ 61-62, 37, 28, 90);
perform incremental rule evaluation wherein not all input values are known at the start of rule evaluation (¶ 38, 81-83, discloses the use of an optimized rule evaluation program. ¶ 21, discloses evaluating rule dependencies. ¶ 43-45, discloses evaluating and identifying the rules of a dependency chain. ¶ 81, 21);
and, at least in part by: selecting a first input for which to determine a first new input value based at least in part on a cost-information gain score associated with the monitored system (¶ 21, 39, 40, discloses rules having an input and determining an input. ¶ 81-82, discloses the use of value checks. ¶ 16, 40, 43, 66, 68, discloses the cost of acquiring a data object. ¶ 65, 91-96.);
determine the first new value (¶ 21, discloses identifying rules that are not identified. ¶ 81, discloses the use of value checks. ¶ 65, 95-96);
and determine a second ruleset by removing from the first ruleset rules whose rule condition can no longer be true based on the first input value (¶ 104-106, there are one or more rules within the second set of rules that no longer have an input that depends on an output of at least one rule of the first set of rules. Upon positive determination, such rules are removed from the second set of rules, thereby reducing the second rule set by eliminating rules which are no longer affected, e.g. the reasoning engine preprocessor determines, in step (b), that rule R12 no longer has an input that depends on the output of RS and removes R12 from the second rule set. ¶ 21, 81).
Voit does not specifically teach a root cause analysis.
However, Cheriton teaches receive a first ruleset associated with a rule-based system for root cause analysis of a monitored system wherein a rule condition table is a root cause table (¶ 40-42, 53, 114-115, discloses rule conditions. ¶ 65, 66, 70, 107, 112, discloses a root cause analysis of a monitored system. ¶ 101, 102, discloses the use of a root cause table).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voit to include/perform root cause analysis of a monitored system wherein a rule condition table is a root cause table, as taught/suggested by Cheriton. This known technique is applicable to the system of Voit as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to automatic rule processing and rule engine implementation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Cheriton would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Cheriton to the teachings of Voit would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such root cause analysis features into similar systems. Further, applying a root cause analysis of a monitored system wherein a rule condition table is a root cause table would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for identification of failure sources, moving beyond symptoms to resolve issues.
Voit does not specifically teach determining the first new input value based at least in part on testing the monitored system.
However, Cheriton teaches determining the first new input value based at least in part on testing the monitored system (¶ 122, 132, 199, 209, 217-218, 253-254, 276, discloses evaluating and determining a new input. ¶ 90, 104-106, 177, 178, disclose the use of unknown values.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voit to include/perform determining the first new input value based at least in part on testing the monitored system, as taught/suggested by Cheriton. This known technique is applicable to the system of Voit as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to automatic rule processing and rule engine implementation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Cheriton would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Cheriton to the teachings of Voit would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such testing analysis features into similar systems. Further, applying determining the first new input value based at least in part on testing the monitored system would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for testing to identify potential issues.
Voit does not specifically teach reducing memory usage for the rule-based system at least in part by freeing memory associated with the first ruleset.
However, Wang teaches reducing memory usage for the rule-based system at least in part by freeing memory associated with the first ruleset (¶ 12-13, 19-22, 48, 62, disclose using a reduced evaluated data set which results in reduced memory requirements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voit to include/perform d reducing memory usage for the rule-based system at least in part by freeing memory associated with the first ruleset, as taught/suggested by Wang. This known technique is applicable to the system of Voit as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to automatic rule processing and memory management. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Wang would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Wang to the teachings of Voit would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such memory reduction features into similar systems. Further, applying reducing memory usage for the rule-based system at least in part by freeing memory associated with the first ruleset would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in a more stable system.
Regarding claim 22, Voit teaches
a computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions for (¶ 26, 28, 37-40 discloses a processor, ¶ 26, 117-118, discloses a medium);
receiving a first ruleset associated with a rule-based system (¶ 11-12, discloses receiving a first group of data objects (rules). ¶ 20-21, disclose identifying a first set of rules. ¶ 61-62, 37, 28, 90);
performing incremental rule evaluation wherein not all input values are known at the start of rule evaluation (¶ 38, 81-83, discloses the use of an optimized rule evaluation program. ¶ 21, discloses evaluating rule dependencies. ¶ 43-45, discloses evaluating and identifying the rules of a dependency chain. ¶ 81, 21);
at least in part by: selecting a first input for which to determine a first new input value based at least in part on a cost-information gain score associated with the monitored system (¶ 21, 39, 40, discloses rules having an input and determining an input. ¶ 81-82, discloses the use of value checks. ¶ 16, 40, 43, 66, 68, discloses the cost of acquiring a data object. ¶ 65, 91-96.);
determining the first new value (¶ 21, discloses identifying rules that are not identified. ¶ 81, discloses the use of value checks. ¶ 65, 95-96);
and determining a second ruleset by removing from the first ruleset rules whose rule condition can no longer be true based on the first input value (¶ 104-106, there are one or more rules within the second set of rules that no longer have an input that depends on an output of at least one rule of the first set of rules. Upon positive determination, such rules are removed from the second set of rules, thereby reducing the second rule set by eliminating rules which are no longer affected, e.g. the reasoning engine preprocessor determines, in step (b), that rule R12 no longer has an input that depends on the output of RS and removes R12 from the second rule set. ¶ 21, 81).
Voit does not specifically teach a root cause analysis.
However, Cheriton teaches receiving a first ruleset associated with a rule-based system for root cause analysis of a monitored system wherein a rule condition table is a root cause table (¶ 40-42, 53, 114-115, discloses rule conditions. ¶ 65, 66, 70, 107, 112, discloses a root cause analysis of a monitored system. ¶ 101, 102, discloses the use of a root cause table).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voit to include/perform root cause analysis of a monitored system wherein a rule condition table is a root cause table, as taught/suggested by Cheriton. This known technique is applicable to the system of Voit as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to automatic rule processing and rule engine implementation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Cheriton would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Cheriton to the teachings of Voit would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such root cause analysis features into similar systems. Further, applying a root cause analysis of a monitored system wherein a rule condition table is a root cause table would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for identification of failure sources, moving beyond symptoms to resolve issues.
Voit does not specifically teach determining the first new input value based at least in part on testing the monitored system.
However, Cheriton teaches determining the first new input value based at least in part on testing the monitored system (¶ 122, 132, 199, 209, 217-218, 253-254, 276, discloses evaluating and determining a new input. ¶ 90, 104-106, 177, 178, disclose the use of unknown values.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voit to include/perform determining the first new input value based at least in part on testing the monitored system, as taught/suggested by Cheriton. This known technique is applicable to the system of Voit as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to automatic rule processing and rule engine implementation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Cheriton would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Cheriton to the teachings of Voit would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such testing analysis features into similar systems. Further, applying determining the first new input value based at least in part on testing the monitored system would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for testing to identify potential issues.
Voit does not specifically teach reducing memory usage for the rule-based system at least in part by freeing memory associated with the first ruleset.
However, Wang teaches reducing memory usage for the rule-based system at least in part by freeing memory associated with the first ruleset (¶ 12-13, 15-22, 48, 62, disclose using a reduced evaluated data set which results in reduced memory requirements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voit to include/perform d reducing memory usage for the rule-based system at least in part by freeing memory associated with the first ruleset, as taught/suggested by Wang. This known technique is applicable to the system of Voit as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to automatic rule processing and memory management. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Wang would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Wang to the teachings of Voit would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such memory reduction features into similar systems. Further, applying reducing memory usage for the rule-based system at least in part by freeing memory associated with the first ruleset would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in a more stable system.
Claim(s) 7, 9-11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voit et al. (US 20160292581 A1) in view of Cheriton (US 20200081882 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 20140351185 A1) in further view of Konstantinou et al. (US 20050097146 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Voit teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein selecting the first input is based at least in part on expected information gained from determining the first input value.
However, Konstantinou teaches wherein selecting the first input is based at least in part on expected information gained from determining the first input value (¶ 224-228, discloses evaluating an expression over an element input value, ¶ 267-268).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voit to include/perform wherein selecting the first input is based at least in part on expected information gained from determining the first input value, as taught/suggested by Konstantinou. This known technique is applicable to the system of Voit as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing data sets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Konstantinou would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Konstantinou to the teachings of Voit would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such selecting features into similar systems. Further, applying wherein selecting the first input is based at least in part on expected information gained from determining the first input value would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for a more specific/accurate selection of input.
Regarding claim 9, Voit teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein selecting the first input is based at least in part on an attribute selection process.
However, Konstantinou teaches wherein selecting the first input is based at least in part on an attribute selection process (¶ 224-228, discloses evaluating an expression over an element input value, ¶ 123, a class attribute relationship, ¶ 148-149, 111-118, 224).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voit to include/perform wherein selecting the first input is based at least in part on an attribute selection process, as taught/suggested by Konstantinou. This known technique is applicable to the system of Voit as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing data sets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Konstantinou would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Konstantinou to the teachings of Voit would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such selecting features into similar systems. Further, applying wherein selecting the first input is based at least in part on an attribute selection process would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for the defined selection of input.
Regarding claim 10, Voit teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein selecting the first input is based at least in part on an RBDT-1 process.
However, Konstantinou teaches wherein selecting the first input is based at least in part on an RBDT-1 process (¶ 4-7, discloses behavior programs, ¶ 25-26, discloses behavior events, ¶ 36, 48, 226).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voit to include/perform wherein selecting the first input is based at least in part on an RBDT-1 process, as taught/suggested by Konstantinou. This known technique is applicable to the system of Voit as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing data sets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Konstantinou would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Konstantinou to the teachings of Voit would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such selecting features into similar systems. Further, applying wherein selecting the first input is based at least in part on an RBDT-1 process would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for the leveraging of consistent knowledge.
Regarding claim 11, Voit teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein selecting the first input is sensitive to a scenario in which rules are being evaluated.
However, Konstantinou teaches wherein selecting the first input is sensitive to a scenario in which rules are being evaluated (¶ 352, choosing for evaluation, ¶ 25-26, discloses behavior events, ¶ 303-310, 343).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voit to include/perform wherein selecting the first input is sensitive to a scenario in which rules are being evaluated, as taught/suggested by Konstantinou. This known technique is applicable to the system of Voit as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing data sets. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Konstantinou would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Konstantinou to the teachings of Voit would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such selecting features into similar systems. Further, applying wherein selecting the first input is sensitive to a scenario in which rules are being evaluated would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for analysis of sensitive information.
Claim(s) 15-19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voit et al. (US 20160292581 A1) in view of Cheriton (US 20200081882 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 20140351185 A1) in further view of Cheriton2 (US 20200264900 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Voit teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not specifically teach a CRCT.
However, Cheriton2 teaches wherein the first ruleset is represented by a conjunctive rule condition table (CRCT), (¶ 155-161, 132-133, 137, 193-195, all disclose RCT): wherein each rule condition in the first ruleset is represented a conjunction of subconditions (¶ 155-161, 132-133, 137, 193-195, all disclose RCT); each rule is represented by a row in the CRCT (¶ 125-0128, 155]-161, 193-195); each subcondition occurring in a rule condition in the first ruleset is represented by a column in the CRCT (¶ 155-161. 193-195, 116).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voit to include/perform the use of a CRCT, as taught/suggested by Cheriton2. This known technique is applicable to the system of Voit as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to rule based control. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Cheriton2 would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Cheriton2 to the teachings of Voit would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such ruleset features into similar systems. Further, applying the use of CRCT would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for defined conditions.
Regarding claim 16, Voit teaches the limitations of claim 15, but does not specifically teach a CRCT.
However, Cheriton2 teaches wherein an entry in the CRCT may be a "don't care" value indicating that the entry matches for any input (¶ 115-117, teaches “don’t care” value, ¶ 132, 133, 143, 329).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voit to include/perform the use of a CRCT, as taught/suggested by Cheriton2. This known technique is applicable to the system of Voit as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to rule based control. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Cheriton2 would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Cheriton2 to the teachings of Voit would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such ruleset features into similar systems. Further, applying the use of CRCT would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for defined conditions.
Regarding claim 17, Voit teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the first ruleset is applied to root cause identification.
However, Cheriton2 teaches wherein the first ruleset is applied to root cause identification (¶ 132, teaches root cause, ¶ 114-117, 140-142, 189).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voit to include/perform wherein the first ruleset is applied to root cause identification, as taught/suggested by Cheriton2. This known technique is applicable to the system of Voit as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to rule based control. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Cheriton2 would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Cheriton2 to the teachings of Voit would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such ruleset features into similar systems. Further, applying wherein the first ruleset is applied to root cause identification would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would improve consistently.
Regarding claim 18, Voit teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the first ruleset is applied to medical diagnosis.
However, Cheriton2 teaches wherein the first ruleset is applied to medical diagnosis (¶ 2, 29, discloses medical application, ¶ 44, 47, 70, 381).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voit to include/perform wherein the first ruleset is applied to medical diagnosis, as taught/suggested by Cheriton2. This known technique is applicable to the system of Voit as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to rule based control. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Cheriton2 would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Cheriton2 to the teachings of Voit would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such ruleset features into similar systems. Further, applying wherein the first ruleset is applied to medical diagnosis would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would identify a specific application of the invention.
Regarding claim 19, Voit teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the first ruleset is applied to medical diagnosis.
However, Cheriton2 teaches wherein the first ruleset is applied to investment decision making (¶ 29, discloses a financial application, ¶ 39, 43, 45, 51 66-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Voit to include/perform wherein the first ruleset is applied to investment decision making, as taught/suggested by Cheriton2. This known technique is applicable to the system of Voit as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to rule based control. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Cheriton2 would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Cheriton2 to the teachings of Voit would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such ruleset features into similar systems. Further, applying wherein the first ruleset is applied to investment decision making would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would identify a specific application of the invention.
Other pertinent prior art includes Hodjat et al. (US 20170293849 A1) which discloses the use of genetic algorithms to extract useful rules or relationships from a data set for use in controlling systems. Wagstaff et al. (US 20180212830 A1) which discloses the use of uploaded rulesets.
Conclusion
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 JAMIE H AUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 7am-2pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270 5389. 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.
JAMIE H. AUSTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JAMIE H AUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625