DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 10/27/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In view of the Patent Board Decision dated 08/29/2025, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained as discussed below.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues (see page 7) that Applicant’s representative has amended the independent claims to clarify the calculation of relevance of the factors is with respect to the statistics of the network segments having connectivity issues. The claim recites use of a mutual information algorithm, descriptions of which often refer to the relevance as a measure of dependence between distinct variables. Clarifying that the relevance being computed is for the factors with respect the statistics of the network segments having connectivity issues elucidates that the subsequent clustering according to the relevance values facilitates root cause analysis of the connectivity issues. With this amendment, it is also clarified that the independent claims are directed to facilitating root cause analysis with the clustering based on calculated relevance between segment factors and network statistics of segments having connectivity issues which is eligible subject matter. Thus, the claims are directed to eligible subject matter under the Alice/Mayo two-part test and not directed to an abstract idea.
The response to the Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, independent claims 1 and 11 recite no limitation requiring root cause analysis. Instead, the claims recite measuring statistics, identifying segments having connectivity, calculating relevance, selecting factors, clustering segments and generating a visual representation, which do not require finding or detecting any root cause. Second, for the sake of argument, even if the claims facilitate root cause analysis, root cause analysis is a problem-solving method, which is a mental process. Reciting mental processes that facilitate another mental process still falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
The Applicant’s arguments fail to address the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Therefore, the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “processing devices” in claim 11.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “a processor of a general purpose computer…the processor of the computer” (see paragraph 0024 of the specification as filed).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1 and 11 satisfy the Step 1 because the claims are a process and machine respectively.
In Step 2A prong 1, the claim 1 recites “measuring, by a computer system, statistics…identifying, by a computer system, a set of segments of a plurality of segments…calculating, by the computer system, relevance of each factor…selecting, by the computer system, a subset of factors…clustering, by the computer system, segments…”, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are steps that are performed in the human mind. For example, a human analyzes information pertaining to connectivity issues and identifies the segments having the issues. A human also performs calculation to obtain relevance of the factors, selects segments based on their calculated relevance and clustering or grouping the segments. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the “measure” or “measuring” term is interpreted as “to estimate or appraise by a criterion”. Therefore, a human can “measure” or “estimate or appraise” statistics (data). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim 11 recites similar features and therefore, claim 11 also recites the abstract idea.
In Step 2A prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because computer system, processing devices and memory devices are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claims also recite the additional step of “generating, by the computer system, a visual representation of the plurality of clusters”. However, this step is an insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g., mere data gathering or displaying data in conjunction with the abstract idea. In addition to the measuring step being a mental process, the measuring step is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is recited merely to gather data (statistics) for processing. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not enough to qualify as “significantly more”. The additional elements or steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because computer system, processing devices and memory devices are general purpose computer components, which are well-understood, routine and conventional (see Decasper et al. (U.S. PGPub 2007/0192474) paragraph 0004 where include conventional components such as a processor, a memory (e.g., RAM)… a network interface, such as a conventional modem), performing the steps recited in the claims and are not sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patentable invention.
Regarding claims 2-10 and 12-20, claims 2-10 and 12-20 recite additional “selecting…”, “clustering…”, “calculating…”, “Elbow Method”, “Silhouette Method”, “Goodman-Kruskal index”, “cloud computing platform”, “plurality of factors…”, “connectivity issues…failing to meet…threshold…” and “generating a Sankey diagram”. However, these features are mental processes as a human can perform selecting, clustering and calculating according to an Elbow Method, Silhouette Method or Goodman-Kruskal index. The feature “cloud computing platform” is conventional, well-understood and routine (Wu et al. (U.S. PGPub 2017/0289059), paragraph 0030 where the conventional cloud computing platform) and “plurality of factors” are merely data used in the selecting or calculating steps. Therefore, these features do not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. Hence, claims 2-10 and 12-20 fail to remedy the deficiencies of claims 1 and 11 and are likewise rejected.
The elements recited in claims 1-20, when considered individually or in an ordered combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes:
U.S. PGPub 2023/0155904, which describes a method for customizable visualization of a traffic topology of a service mesh;
U.S. PGPub 2021/0226870, which describes techniques for discovering network metrics relating to communications between a client device and a server device via a network; and
U.S. PGPub 2011/0096678, which describes a method and a system for service quality monitoring in a network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MENG VANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7023. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-2PM, 3PM-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, NICHOLAS TAYLOR can be reached at (571) 272-3889. 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.
/MENG VANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights