DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
Applicant presents a communication filed 2 July 2026 responsive to the 2 April 2026 non-final Office action (the “Previous Action”).
With the communication:
claims 1, 10, 15 and 19-20 are amended;
claims 11-12 and 16-17 are cancelled; and
new claims 21-24 are added.
Claims 1-10, 13-15 and 18-24 are pending. Claims 1 and 19-20 are the independent claims.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 is eligible because the human mind with aid of pen and paper “cannot ingest the metrics, events, logs, and traces flowing through a multi-tenant ingestion pipeline of a distributed computing platform, construct from them a typed, directed graph of entities and associations representing the observed system, and persist the topology data comprising the entities and associations in a topology store.” (Remarks, p. 12 par. 1).
Examiner respectfully submits in response that persisting entities and associations in a topology store is merely insignificant extra-solution activity and thus does not render the claim eligible. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(g). As to the other features, the claim plainly does not refer to them. Limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that even if the claims were construed as reciting an abstract idea, the amended claims integrate it into a practical application because, according to Applicant, they recite various technological improvements. In particular, Applicant points to paragraph [0087]-[0090] of the application publication as support. (Remarks, p. 12 Sec. 1 par. 1 – p. 13 par. 2).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that the purported improvements argued and described paragraphs [0087]-[0090] only generally refer to various aspects of the disclosed invention that are not recited by the claims. The cited paragraphs, as well as Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed to the entirety of the disclosure as opposed to what is claimed.
Applicant argues that the claims do not merely collect, analyze and display information. (Remarks, p. 13 par. 3).
Examiner respectfully submits that they are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons set forth below.
Applicant argues that the analysis does not address the newly amended features of the claim, i.e., mapping and writing to a topology store. (Remarks, p. 13 last par.).
Examiner respectfully points out that those elements are addressed in the rejections below and do not render the claim eligible.
Applicant argues that the claims do not preempt any abstract idea. (Remarks, p. 13 last par. – p. 14 par. 1).
Examiner respectfully submits in response that preemption is not a stand-alone test for determining eligibility and that absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(I).
Applicant argues that the ordered combination of the claims amounts to significantly more because a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement can constitute significantly more. (Remarks, p. 14 par. 2).
Examiner respectfully points out that such an arrangement “can” constitute significantly more but does not do so here. Note too that the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the remaining claims by virtue of their dependence from claim 1, similarity with claim 1 or dependence from a similar claim are unpersuasive for the same reasons.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the § 103 rejections are moot because those rejections have been withdrawn.
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(s) is/are:
The “…mapping, by the observability data ingestion pipeline…” in claim 1;
The “…writing, by a topology writer…” in claim 1;
The “…mapping, by the observability data ingestion pipeline…” in claim 19;
The “…writing, by a topology writer…” in claim 19;
The “…mapping, by the observability data ingestion pipeline…” in claim 20;
The “…writing, by a topology writer…” in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 § 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 1-10, 13-15 and 18-24 are rejected 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.
As to claims 1, limitations of these claims noted above invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph as noted. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions of each limitation and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the claimed functions. For computer-implemented means plus function limitations, note that the disclosed structure must include an algorithm for performing the function claimed. See MPEP § 2181(II)(B). And the specification provides no algorithm sufficient for performing any of the claimed functions here. It does little more than repeat the language of the claims. See, e.g., pars. [0063-0064] of the specification.
Since the specification lacks sufficient corresponding structure, the claim is indefinite and an equivalent is any element that performs the specified function. See M.P.E.P. §§ 2181(II)(B) and 2185.
As to claims 2-10, 13-15, 18 and 21-24, the claims are dependent on claim 1 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim and are rejected for the same reasons.
Further as to claim 19 and 20, the means-plus-function limitations of these claims lacks sufficient corresponding structure in the specification and indefinite, for reasons substantially the same as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10, 13-15 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 1-10, 13-15 and 18-24, the claims include means-plus function limitations lacking sufficient corresponding structure as noted above. Such limitations also lack written description. See M.P.E.P. § 2163.03(VI).
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 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 13-15, 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites:
[a] method, comprising:
providing, by a process, a core technology stack for an extensibility platform;
managing, by the process, a plurality of solution packages within the extensibility platform that are separated from the core technology stack, wherein managing the plurality of solution packages comprises deploying the plurality of solution packages, receiving configuration data that declaratively defines data mode and processing dependencies for each solution package, and storing the configuration data in association with respective solution package, wherein the plurality of solution packages have one or more globally shared core solution packages, wherein a respective solution package includes a plurality of models that refer to each other, and integrity and consistency of mutual references among the plurality of models are tracked and enforced;
operating, by the process, according to one or more tenant-based solution packages within the plurality of solution packages within the extensibility platform, the one or more tenant-based solution packages defining corresponding tenant-specified models and configurations for soft-coded customized extension points for the extensibility platform; and
managing, by the process, multi-tenancy of an observability data ingestion pipeline according to the plurality of solution packages including the soft-coded customized extension points for the extensibility platform, wherein managing the multi-tenancy data comprises, for a given tenant that has subscribed to one or more solution packages, mapping, by the observability data ingestion pipeline, ingested observability data into a topology representing a graph of entities and associations between the entities, the topology representing a system under observation, wherein the associations connect the entities as directed edges of the graph, the entities and the associations being defined according to entity types and association types specified by models of the one or more solution packages to which the given tenant has subscribed, and writing, by a topology writer of the observability data ingestion pipeline, the entities and the associations to a topology store.
Though the claim recites a process (Step 1), under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification the above underlined elements recite a mental process because all of the above steps are performable by the human mind with aid of pen and paper. Note that “providing” a core technology stack may include merely include supplying some description or indication of the stack and “mapping” can merely include determining some correspondence between two sets of information. The claim therefore recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A Prong 1).
None of the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, at least because the deploying of the packages, storing the configuration information in association with the solution packages and writing entities and associations in a topology store only appear to nominally or insignificantly related to the process and thus appear to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, referring to steps as performed by a topology writer or observability data ingestion pipeline only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computing components. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f).
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination yields the same conclusion as that reached when looking at the elements individually. Their collective function is merely to implement the abstract idea along with insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for substantially the same reasons discussed above with respect to a practical application. (Step 2B). Note that re-evaluation of the “storing…”, “deploying…” and “writing…” noted above does not indicate that these elements are anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. Courts have recognized that storing data in memory is well-understood, routine and conventional. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(g). And deploying software is well-understood, routine and conventional at least as evidenced by its description in various references of record. (See, e.g., US 2022/0247784 at par. [0089], US 2015/0347617 at par. [0037], US 2023/0103087 at par. [0026]).
As to claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-10, 18 and 21 the features of these claims do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more at least because they add no additional elements. They only further describe the abstract idea.
As to claim 13, the features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more at least because add no additional elements either. Note that displaying information is still part of a mental process per M.P.E.P. § 2104(a)(2)(III)(A).
As to claim 14, the features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more at least because the “processing” of logic provided as a container image is recited at a high-level of generality and may thus only include making judgements or observations with respect to that logic, and because “to expose a service interface…” only refers to non-limiting intended use.
As to claim 15, the features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more at least because “evolving” the core technology stack may merely include changing description or indication of it noted above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, “updating” a package is recited at a high level of generality and may merely include changing some information associated with the package, which is performable by the human mind with aid of pen and paper. Note that the human mind is capable of “receiving” information, so the recited “receiving…” only further describes the abstract idea itself.
As to claim 19, the claim recites the same abstract idea as claim 1. The addition of a “tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored therein that, when executing by a processor on a computer, cause the computer perform” the process amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f).
As to claim 20, the claim recites the same abstract idea as claim 1. The addition of a “one or more network interfaces to communicate with a network; a processor coupled to the one or more network interfaces and configured to execute one or more processes; a memory configured to store a process that is executable by the processor, the process, when executed, configured to” perform the method of claim 1 amounts mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f).
As to claim 22, the features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more at least because all of the recited functions are performable by the human mind with aid of pen and paper and recited them as being performed be a “resource mapping service” only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f).
As to claim 23, the features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more at least because mapping is performable by the human mind with aid of pen and paper as noted above and the claimed “creating…” step only recites non-limiting contingent limitations. See M.P.E.P. § 2111.04.
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 TODD AGUILERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11AM - 7:30PM EST.
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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at (571)272-6799. 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.
/TODD AGUILERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights