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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) filed on 12/09/2022 has/have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitations “detecting, determining, mapping, generating)” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “outputting” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, the other technological limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “outputting” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
No, the other technological limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
As to claim 2, the steps are the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
As to claim 3, the extracting is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “including” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As to claim 4, the “extracting” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “inputting” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
As to claim 5, the “generating” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “generating a warning” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As to claim 6, the “database search” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
As to claim 7, the “updating” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(1).
As to claims 8-13, they are rejected for reasons similar to those detailed above regarding claims 1-6.
As to claims 14-20, they are rejected for reasons similar to those detailed above regarding claims 1-7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 13, and 19rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The acronym KPI is not defined in claims 6, 13, and 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimitropoulos (US 10891219 B1) in view of Bansal (WO 2021243342 A1).
As to claim 1, Dimitropoulos teaches a method, comprising:
detecting, with computer hardware, a computer-generated indication of an information technology (IT) failure affecting a process performed by an IT system (see Fig. 5, disclosing receiving a new signature by failure data processors);
determining, with the computer hardware, that the computer-generated indication corresponds to a previously unseen IT failure (see Fig. 5, disclosing determining if the new signature matches or does not match a known failure signature);
mapping, with the computer hardware executing an unseen event handler, the previously unseen IT failure to a previously seen IT failure based on a similarity score generated by a computer-implemented similarity scorer (see Fig. 5 Blocks 507-513 and corresponding text, disclosing when a new signature does a previous one, determining a minimum amount of similarity/degree or number of similarities);
generating, with a machine learning model, an IT failure impact prediction and recommendation based on the mapping (see Fig. 5, and associated text, disclosing predicting the chance of failure based on the comparisons to failure signatures), wherein the machine learning model is based on a unified process-IT topology (see col. 20, lines 20-25 and Figs. 3A and 3B and their associated text, describing machine learning models); and
outputting, with the computer hardware, the IT failure prediction (see Fig. 5 and associated text and boxes 509-217, disclosing responses that indicate the chances of failure).
Dimitropoulos does not explicitly that the recommendation is generated and outputted.
However, Bansal teaches determining a recommended action for a failure based on solutions to previous application failures that are similar (see paragraphs 0016-0018).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Dimitropoulos with the teachings of Bansal because it helps mitigate data loss, performance issues, and crashes (see paragraph 0009).
As to claim 3, the references teach claim 1 as detailed above. They further teach extracting a resolution history corresponding to the previously seen IT failure; and including the resolution history in the IT failure prediction and recommendation (see Bansal paragraph 0020, disclosing sending a solution based on previous similar failures).
As to claim 7, the references teach claim 1 as referenced above. They further teach updating the machine learning model based on the mapping of the previously unseen IT failure to a previously seen IT failure (see Dimitropoulos col. 20, lines 12-19 and Bansal 0019, disclosing updating information with new signatures or information about failures events).
As to claims 8 and 10, they are rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claims 1 and 3 because they are substantially equivalent.
As to claims 14, 16, and 20, they are rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claims 1, 3, and 7 because they are substantially equivalent.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Dimitropoulos and Bansal in view of Jermann (US 20200241490 A1).
As to claim 5, the references teach claim 1 as referenced above. The references further teach the computer-generated indication is a previously unseen IT alert and wherein the generating includes: responsive to determining that the previously unseen IT alert maps to a previously seen IT alert from an external environment (see col. 14, lines 37-53, disclosing the sources of training data). They do not explicitly teach the generating includes generating an estimated severity of impact on the IT system; and generating a warning of the estimated severity to include as part of the IT failure prediction and recommendation.
However, Jermann teaches outputting a severity level of a predicted event (see paragraph 0150).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the references with the severity levels of Jermainn because it helps mitigates the costs of failures (see paragraph 0004).
As to claims 12 and 18, they are rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 5 because they are substantially equivalent.
Conclusion
No prior art was found with which it would be appropriate to reject claims 2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON B BRYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7091. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8-5 First Friday off.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 5712720631. 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.
/JASON B BRYAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114