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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 12/9/2025. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 16-17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendment overcomes the 101 abstract idea rejection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the detailed 101 write up below.
Further, Applicant argues that Nagar does not disclose the amended limitations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nagar discloses establishing a secure communication channel between the user device, the data center asset and a monitoring and management console; (as shown in Fig. 1 and [0023] of Nagar, communication between user devices, data center and user console) generating a request to the monitoring and management console for a natural language processing (NLP) operation session, the NLP operation session allowing the user to perform NLP-based interactions with the monitoring and management console, the monitoring and management console including an NLP operation session state and inference machine, the NLP operation session state and inference machine being implemented to maintain state information associated with a particular NLP operation session; (Figs. 1 and 3 and [0060], [0086] of Nagar, the computer environment 300/monitoring and management console host the NLP operation 130, NLP can be integrated or separate module, if the NLP is integrated once user’s voice is detected, the NLP function/module is enabled and hence user’s voice is the request for the NLP operation session. Further, [0084] of Nagar, the analytics module 135 analysis the processed NLP which records a particular state associated with the NLP operation session)
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If itis determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant is advised to consult the 2019 PEG for more details of the analysis.
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Claims 1-5 are drawn to an apparatus, claim 6 is drawn to a method and claims 7-11 are drawn to recording medium storing a computer program, therefore each of these claim groups falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (machine/products/apparatus, process/method, manufactures and compositions of mater; Step 1). Nonetheless, the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significant more (Step 2A, see below). Independent claims 1, 7 and 13 are non-verbatim but similar in claim construction, hence share the same rationale that the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows:
As to claim 1:
Claim 1 recites “A computer-implementable method for performing a data center management and monitoring operation, comprising: logging a user in to a user device; identifying a data center asset to monitor or manage; establishing a secure communication channel between the user device, the data center asset and a monitoring and management console; generating a request to the monitoring and management console for a natural language processing (NLP) operation session, the NLP operation session allowing the user to perform NLP-based interactions with the monitoring and management console, the monitoring and management console including an NLP operation session state and inference machine, the NLP operation session state and inference machine being implemented to maintain state information associated with a particular NLP operation session; and, authenticating the user and the user device to the monitoring and management console during the NLP operation session.“
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 limitation “the NLP operation session allowing the user to perform NLP-based interactions with the monitoring and management console” 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). Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of a person wants to understand a sentence and/or dictionary, which is an observation or evaluation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. 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, this limitation “computer-implementable method for performing a data center management and monitoring operation”, “the monitoring and management console including an NLP operation session state and inference machine” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, this limitation “establishing a secure communication channel between the user device, the data center asset and a monitoring and management console”, “identifying a data center asset to monitor or manage”, “logging a user in to a user device” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, this limitation “generating a request to the monitoring and management console for a natural language processing (NLP) operation session” and “the NLP operation session state and inference machine being implemented to maintain state information associated with a particular NLP operation session” amount to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “generating”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
No, This limitation “authenticating the user and the user device to a monitoring and management console during the NLP operation session” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
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 abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
First, the additional elements directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the claimed limitations generally link the judicial exception to the technology environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
Second, the additional elements mere application of the abstract idea or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the limitations generally apply the use of a generic computer and/or process with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). However, they are included below for the sake of completeness.
No, this limitation “computer-implementable method for performing a data center management and monitoring operation”, “the monitoring and management console including an NLP operation session state and inference machine” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, this limitation “establishing a secure communication channel between the user device, the data center asset and a monitoring and management console”, “identifying a data center asset to monitor or manage”, “logging a user in to a user device” are additional elements that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, this limitation “generating a request to the monitoring and management console for a natural language processing (NLP) operation session” and “the NLP operation session state and inference machine being implemented to maintain state information associated with a particular NLP operation session” amount to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform “generating”. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and as such is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data, 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, This limitation “authenticating the user and the user device to a monitoring and management console during the NLP operation session” is merely a post-solution step and as such is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not eligible subject matter.
Therefore, in examining elements as recited by the limitations individually and as an ordered combination, as a whole the independent claim limitations do not recite what have the courts have identified as “significantly more”.
Furthermore, regarding dependent claims 2-6 which are dependent on claim 1, claims 8-12 which are dependent on claim 7, and claims 14-20 which are dependent on claim 13, do not recite limitations that integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. In addition, the claim limitations do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). Therefore, the claims do not recite any limitations, when considered individually or as a whole, that recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more”, see MPEP 2106.05; and therefore, as a whole the claims are not patent eligible.
As shown above, the dependent claims do not provide any additional elements that when considered individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified. Therefore, as a whole the dependent claims do not recite what the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception and does not recite, when claim elements are examined individually and as a whole, elements that the courts have identified as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagar et al (US 20200236427 A1).
Referring to claims 1, 7 and 13, Nagar discloses a computer-implementable method (Fig. 1 of Nagar, processor, memory and management platform) for performing a data center management and monitoring operation, comprising:
logging a user in to a user device ([0074] of Nagar, user log into the loT device 151 using login credentials);
identifying a data center asset to monitor or manage; ([0043] of Nagar, cloud systems automatically control and optimize resource use by leveraging a metering capability at some level of abstraction appropriate to the type of service (e.g., storage, processing, bandwidth, and active user accounts). Resource usage can be monitored, controlled, and reported, providing transparency for both the provider and consumer of the utilized service.)
establishing a secure communication channel between the user device, the data center asset and a monitoring and management console; (as shown in Fig. 1 and [0023] of Nagar, communication between user devices, data center and user console)
generating a request to the monitoring and management console for a natural language processing (NLP) operation session, the NLP operation session allowing the user to perform NLP-based interactions with the monitoring and management console, the monitoring and management console including an NLP operation session state and inference machine, the NLP operation session state and inference machine being implemented to maintain state information associated with a particular NLP operation session; (Figs. 1 and 3 and [0060], [0086] of Nagar, the computer environment 300/monitoring and management console host the NLP operation 130, NLP can be integrated or separate module, if the NLP is integrated once user’s voice is detected, the NLP function/module is enabled and hence user’s voice is the request for the NLP operation session. Further, [0084] of Nagar, the analytics module 135 analysis the processed NLP which records a particular state associated with the NLP operation session) and,
authenticating the user and the user device to the monitoring and management console during the NLP operation session. ([0074] of Nagar, user log into the loT device 151 using login credentials and their profile being authenticated into order to log into the system and use the tools, such as NLP operation)
Referring to claims 3, 9 and 15, Nagar discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: using an NLP language pack during the NLP operation session, the NLP language pack enabling the NLP operation session for a particular user. ([0074] of Nagar, user log into the loT device 151 using login credentials and their profile being authenticated into order to log into the system and use the tools, such as NLP operation and [0086] of Nagar, NLP can be integrated or separate module, if the NLP is integrated once user’s voice is detected, the NLP function/module is enabled and hence user’s voice is the request for the NLP operation session)
Referring to claims 4, 10 and 16, Nagar discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the state information associated with a particular NLP operation session includes one or more of information related to a location of the user, data center assets with which the user has recently interacted, and an outcome of the interaction between the user and the data center assets. ([0074] of Nagar, user log into the loT device 151 using login credentials and their profile being authenticated into order to log into the system and use the tools, such as NLP operation and [0086] of Nagar, NLP can be integrated or separate module, if the NLP is integrated once user’s voice is detected, the NLP function/module is enabled and hence user’s voice is the request for the NLP operation session. Hence, each user’s NLP progress is being monitored as every usage of the NLP is associated with a particular NLP state. [0023] of Nagar, “Embodiments of this disclosure describe apparatuses, systems, methods, and computer program products that leverage the use of IoT devices 151 and computing networks 150, integrated within the environment surrounding a user 601 or the content 603, to identify a user's 601 interest in content 603 being displayed at physical locations.”)
Referring to claims 5, 11 and 17, Nagar discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the NLP operation session state and inference machine uses an NLP rule along with interpretations of NLP operation session information to make an inference related to interactions of the user with the data center monitoring and management console during the NLP operation session. ([0074] of Nagar, user log into the loT device 151 using login credentials and their profile being authenticated into order to log into the system and use the tools, such as NLP operation and [0086] of Nagar, NLP can be integrated or separate module, if the NLP is integrated once user’s voice is detected, the NLP function/module is enabled and hence user’s voice is the request for the NLP operation session. Further, [0060]-[0063] of Nagar, user’s behavior and interaction with the system is being tracked and inferred)
Referring to claims 6, 12 and 18, Nagar discloses the method of claim 5, wherein: the inference predicts a future user request related to interactions of the user with the data center monitoring and management console during the NLP operation session. ([0027] of Nagar, user’s future content can be presented based on the user’s interest shown (through tracking via user’s interaction in the system))
Referring to claim 19, Nagar discloses the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein: the computer executable instructions are deployable to a client system from a server system at a remote location. ([0126] of Nagar, remote computer or server to host the software package)
Referring to claim 20, Nagar discloses the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein: the computer executable instructions are provided by a service provider to a user on an on-demand basis. ([0039] of Nagar, on-demand self-service)
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.
Claims 2, 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagar et al (US 20200236427 A1) in view of Hertschuh et al (US 11114090 B1).
Referring to claims 2, 8 and 14, Nagar discloses the method of claim 1. Nagar does not specifically disclose further comprising: generating a random user identifier and random password; and, using the random user identifier and the random password to initiate the NLP operation session.
However, Hertschuh discloses generating a random user identifier and random password; and, using the random user identifier and the random password to initiate the NLP operation session. (col. 19, line 58- col. 20, line 6 of Herschuh)
Nagar and Hertschuh are analogous art because both references concern NLP operations. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nagar’s log in authentication with NLP operation with using a random log in credentials with an NLP operation as taught by Hertschuh. The motivation for doing so would have been allow user to quickly establish log in credentials and then link to their real profile later to personalize NLP processing.
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 HAIMEI JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Mariela D Reyes can be reached at 571-270-1006. 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.
/HAIMEI JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2142