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 .
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 1-2, 4-9, 13-16, 18-20
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. However, the claimed invention is directed mental process and performing statistical/mathematical calculations without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of the claims regarding subject matter eligibility in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG):
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis
Step 1: Do the Claims Specify a Statutory Category?
Claims 1-2, 4-7 describe a method/process, claims 8-9, 13-14 describe a system, and claims 15-16, 18-20 describe a computer-readable tangible storage medium, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 1-2, 4-7
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Independent claim 1, as amended, recites a limitation for identifying a log database with known error patterns; mapping the known error patterns from the log database into plurality of diagrams; identifying logs of a new error pattern; mapping the new error pattern to a two-dimensional diagram; based on determining whether the distance value is below or above or equal to the threshold for at least one diagram within the plurality of diagrams, identifying log data of the at least one diagram or sending the log data to an entity outside of the system and requesting a resolution from the entity; and based on determining a distance value is below a threshold for at least one diagram within the plurality of diagrams, identifying log data of the; and resolving the new error pattern based on a solution within the log data of the at least one diagram, wherein resolving comprises determination and generation, based on the new error pattern, of a preferable resolution to be added to the log database, requesting a resolution from the entity and adding the resolution as a log database feedback to the log database; and generating and sending an electronic message comprising log data to the entity and requesting a resolution from the entity; adding the log data to the log database feedback; and performing further training of AI algorithm based on the feedback. The limitations describe processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., use of a processor or a generic computer, and off-the shelf AI software). That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind using a computer as a tool. The limitations involve making evaluations of the collected object information in order to determine a pattern and then identify associated problems for that pattern, thereby describing an observation and/or evaluation of data. Such an observation and/or evaluation of data can be performed by a human and recites a mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the practical performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim further recites “training, by the system, an artificial intelligence (Al) algorithm with the plurality of diagrams, wherein the training comprises applying an image similarity recognition process, training an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm with the plurality of diagrams to recognize similarity between the images and after receipt of the current image representing the log data of the current event, determine the corresponding resolution of an event based on the comparing the current image to the images, wherein the AI algorithm compares diagrams and returns a distance value; comparing the two-dimensional diagram to the plurality of diagrams using the AI algorithm, and wherein the training comprises training the AI algorithm with the plurality of diagrams for image similarity comparison that returns as an output vector that represents a distance between images.” These limitations, as currently written, describe using existing artificial intelligence technology (i.e., machine learning) in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer component, or utilizing generic artificial intelligence technology to apply the identified judicial exception, does not describe an inventive concept. The claim limitations of using various, possible algorithms in training also can be interpreted as mere mathematical calculations. As explained in the October 2019 Update to the 2019 PEG, when determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), consideration must be given as to whether a claim recites a mathematical concept or merely includes limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes the performance of mathematical calculations (even if a formula is not recited in the claim), then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claim 1 also recites sending an electronic message and receiving data. The examiner interprets the “emailing” as merely using a computer as a tool to accomplish a mental process. As stated in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C 2:
2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that "with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper". 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360.
The applicant has amended the claims to recite wherein the pattern is a harmful event sequence pattern indicative of a system fault, failure, crash or infiltration. The examiner interprets this as merely describing the types of possible data that are collected and identified thereof. Again, this could be achieved by the collecting of data and manually identifying a pattern according the collected data.
Claim 2 is interpreted as directed to the type of data identified during the mental process.
Claims 4-5 are directed contain mathematical concepts directed to performing the abstract idea identified in claim 1.
As explained in the October 2019 Update to the 2019 PEG, when determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), consideration must be given as to whether a claim recites a mathematical concept or merely includes limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. The claims recited generic AI algorithms without any further direction and, therefore, is interpreted as using a generic AI mathematical process, as stated above.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes the performance of mathematical calculations (even if a formula is not recited in the claim), then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, claims 2-11 each recite an abstract idea.
Claims 6-7 are directed to more mental processes, e.g. mapping data and displaying resultant data to a user to enable the user to further sort said data.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 1, as amended, indicates “A processor-implemented method for log pattern analysis…”. Even if the described methods are implemented on a processor/computer, there is no indication that the combination of elements in the claim solves any particular technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing computer technology in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exceptions. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s). The processor cited in the claim is described at a high level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 1 also recites training an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm with a plurality of diagrams to recognize similarity between the images and after receipt of the current image representing the log data of the current event, determine the corresponding resolution of an event based on the comparing the current image to the images, and compares diagrams and returns a distance value; comparing the two-dimensional diagram to the plurality of diagrams using the AI algorithm. As stated above, these limitations, as currently written, describe using existing artificial intelligence technology (i.e., machine learning) in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer component, or utilizing generic artificial intelligence technology to apply the identified judicial exception, does not describe an inventive concept. The applicant has amended the claim as to resolving the new error pattern based on a solution within the log data of the at least one diagram. The examiner interprets the amendment as generically applying a resolution to an identified problem, respectively, without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Claims 2, 6-7 describe further details regarding the data and/or statistical/mathematical calculations. These claims contain no additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
In the instant case, as detailed in the analysis for Step 2A-Prong 2, claim 1 contains devices recited in the claim describe a generic computer processor and/or computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
The limitations pertaining to gathering of object information, display of calculation results, and generically applying a resolution to an identified problem describe insignificant extra-solution activity and are written at a high level in a generic manner without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. Therefore, these limitations recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas defined in the claim.
The applicant has amended the claims to recite applying the resolution and transforming the system by remediation of the harmful event sequence pattern. The examiner interprets this as equivalent to the “apply it” language as cited in the MPEP 2106.05(f), as, at least, invoking just a generality of the application of the judicial system. The claim recites transforming the system without any detail of how and what is transformed. Furthermore, the claim recites the remediation of the pattern and not the system which is interpreted as merely isolating or deleting, etc. of the pattern data and not the system.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, as amended, recite limitations regarding the use of an AI algorithm and the training of the algorithm. As discussed above in the Step 2A - Prong 2 analysis regarding integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the limitations, as currently written, describe mathematical calculations and evaluations describe mathematical concepts that can be performed by a human (i.e., as a mental process and/or by using pen/paper) and are therefore directed to the identified judicial exception. Stating in the amended dependent claims that the unsupervised learning comprises actions which describe a mental process and/or mathematical concepts is equivalent to merely specifying instructions to apply the judicial exception using unsupervised learning. See MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no indication that the combination of elements solves a technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing artificial intelligence technology (i.e., machine learning) in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer component, or utilizing generic artificial intelligence technology to apply the identified judicial exception, does not describe an inventive concept.
Conclusion
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 1-11 recite and are directed to abstract ideas and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea(s). Claims 1-2, 6-7 are therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 8-9, 13-16, 18-20
Claims 8-9, 13-16, 18-20 contain limitations for a computer system with computer-readable tangible storage medium and processors which are similar to the limitations for the methods specified in claims 1-2, 6-7, respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1 and Step 2A – Prong 2 for claims 8-9, 13-16, 18-20 is similar to that presented above for claims 1-2, 4-7.
The applicant has amended claim 8 to cite “performing health and anomaly checks of the system based on the log pattern analysis.” The examiner argues that this step can be performed via the human mind with/without a computer as a tool and is, therefore, rejected under the same arguments as claim 1 with respect to mental process using a computer as a tool.
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
The computer-readable medium and processors cited in the claim describe generic computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception. The enabling of the processors to troubleshoot a performance problem recites intended use of the claimed limitations and does not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception.
Conclusion
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 8-9, 13-16, 18-20 recite and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract ideas(s). Claims 8-9, 13-16, 18-20 are therefore not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/8/25 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
The applicant has amended and has overcome the USC 103 rejection.
With respect to the USC 101 rejection, the applicant has amended, but did not argue the rejection. The examiner will address the amendment as the crux of the argument. As stated in the above rejection:
The applicant has amended the claims to recite wherein the pattern is a harmful event sequence pattern indicative of a system fault, failure, crash or infiltration. The examiner interprets this as merely describing the types of possible data that are collected and identified thereof. Again, this could be achieved by the collecting of data and manually identifying a pattern according the collected data using the AI model.
The applicant has amended the claims to recite applying the resolution and transforming the system by remediation of the harmful event sequence pattern. The examiner interprets this as equivalent to the “apply it” language as cited in the MPEP 2106.05(f), as, at least, invoking just a generality of the application of the judicial system. The claim recites transforming the system without any detail of how and what is transformed. Furthermore, the claim recites the remediation of the pattern and not the system which is interpreted as merely isolating, deleting, correcting, etc. of the pattern data and not the system.
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 CHRISTOPHER S MCCARTHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER S MCCARTHY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113