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 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12-17, 19-21, 23, 26-29
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12-17, 19-21, 23, 26-29 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 to 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 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12-14 describe a device/system, claims 15-17, 19-21, 23, 26-28 describe a method, and claim 29 describe a non-transitory computer-readable medium, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12-14
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 1 recites the limitations of “to track communication between a plurality of interconnected system components of the distributed computer system, intercept a network problem, and monitor for an alert…; receive a health log from each of the system components…; capture, from each said health log, common key identifiers for tracing a route of the messages…; modify the common identifier each time it is processed by one of the system components to identify a path taken by the messages; automatically determine, based on applying the network infrastructure information to the health logs including the common key identifiers and further mapping to a set of health monitoring rules comprising data integrity information, a particular component of the system components originating the error and associated dependent components affected; send out a command to test the component and displaying the resultant data with an alert; automatically applying an operational resolution to the component originating the error selected from a mapping table” (paraphrased). The limitations describe processes that, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as being performed in the human mind with the aid of computer. According to the MPEP:
3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
The limitations involve collecting/intercepting error data, analyzing data, and using said analyzed data to determine the root cause of the error. A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, (EPG) Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) 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.
Claims 2-3 describe further data collection and comparing said data with the previously collected data of claim to determine if the previously collected data meets a predefined standard and also to determine any patterns. Each of the limitations in these dependent claims describes processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, contain mathematical concepts directed to performing the abstract idea identified in claim 1.
Claims 5-7, 12-13 describe mere types of data being collected
Claims 9, 14 describe more analysis of the collected data.
All the above dependent limitations fall within the mental process using a computer as a tool, as cited above.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12-14 recite a computing device for monitoring health of a distributed system, having a processor coupled to a memory storing instructions to perform the process. Even if the described methods are implemented on a 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)).
The applicant also cites “apply an operational resolution”. The examiner directs the applicant to the MPEP section 2106.05(f), wherein it states:
Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
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 additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea. The processors and data storage 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 collecting data, data analysis, and comparing to other data and displaying data. The present claim limitations do not transform nor even apply any remediation to the monitored system. As stated in the MPEP, mere collecting and analyzing is not significantly more.
Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;
Also, as stated in the MPEP:
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The limitations also recite the term “automatically”. In light of a possible argument that the process is automated and, therefore, significantly more, the MPEP states
Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
The claims also cite “wherein responsive to the determination, the operational resolution applied to the particular component comprises disabling the particular component of the system components originating the error.” As stated in the MPEP 2106.05(d)I2:
2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1317; 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9, 12-14 do not apply any more inventive concept to the identified abstract idea. The claims only further collect, analyze, and display without any further application or remediation.
Conclusion
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12-14 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 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12-14 are therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 15-17, 19-21, 23, 26-28
Claims 15-17, 19-21, 23, 26-28 contain limitations for a method which are similar to the limitations for the system specified in claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12-14, respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1, Step 2A – Prong 2, and Step 2B for claims 15-17, 19-23, 26-28 is similar to that presented above for claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12-14.
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 15-17, 19-28 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 15-17, 19-23, 26-28 are therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2 Analysis for Claim 29
Claim 29 contains limitations for a non-transitory computer-readable medium which are similar to the limitations for the methods specified in claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12-14, respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1 and Step 2A – Prong 2 and Step 2B for claim 29 is similar to that presented above for claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12-14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has amended the claims and has also argued the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant has argued, as cited in the Remarks dated 9/16/25, on page 12, the invention presents a solution to a technical problem. The applicant points the language of intercepting network problem as it occurs and captures an common identifier. As stated prior, the examiner interprets this as merely collecting data as intercepting has no detail as to anything other than receiving/collecting data. The applicant further argues that the claims include improvement over conventional methods and provides a clear technical solution to the technical problem of monitoring and troubleshooting distributed computer systems and their components. The examiner maintains there is no actual technical solution, but merely an idea of a solution. While claiming applying an operational resolution to a particular problem, there is no details of what problem and there is “resolution” applied that improves the system. The operational resolution can be an email, an SMS, a GUI, etc. as taught in the present Specification in paragraph 0068. As such, displaying or notifying an alert to a human does not overcome the rejection, see rejection as to EPG.
The applicant also argues the claims do not recite judicial exceptions as the claims recite physical effects or changes to the system. The applicant argues the modifying of the common identifier each time it is processed or communicated. The examiner contends the claim language does not explicitly teach this limitation as the common identifier is received and captured in a health log and is not received each time it is processed or communicated. The examiner interprets the modifying as possibly adding/deleting, updating an identifier as the human further analyzes the collected data. The applicant also interprets “intercepting” as a physical intervention and is an operational function and not abstract. Again, the examiner interprets it as merely a means to collect data. Similarly, the applicant argues sending out a test command cannot be a mental process. The examiner interprets this as merely another alert or communication as the test is never executed. The applicant states in the Remarks, page 13, the test triggers an observable change in the system’s configuration and functional state. There is no such language and such language of what changes are observed when the test is executed would be beneficial in the advancement of prosecution.
The applicant also argues, on page 13, the claims are analogous to the example in the 2025 memo. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant states the actions of capturing, modifying, receiving, sending a test, displaying, determining a resolution, and applying the determined resolution cannot be in the human mind. The examiner contends the actions of capturing and receiving are merely a means to receive data. Sending a test, and displaying is merely a communication to another and is similar to EPG of displaying to a human and sending a test or applying a resolution could be merely an email/message, see MPEP 2106.04IIIC2, as mental processes in a computer environment. Again, language of the test changing or modifying the system would be beneficial. The action of determining a resolution is interpreted as a mental process.
The applicant argues the claims do not need to explicitly recite the improvement. The examiner agrees. The applicant argues, page 15 of the Remarks, the claims recite a solution for resolving communication errors that include modifying a common identifier each time it is processed or communicated by one of the system components to identify a path taken by the message through the distributed computer system. The examiner contends there is no solution in the claims to any errors and, as stated prior, the common identifier does recite as being modified each time it is processed, it is also claimed as being captured in a health log responsive to a detected error. The term “processed” can be interpreted as merely a human analyzing the health log and identifying the path data associated with a system component, the identifier is modified/changed/incremented, etc. If the applicant wishes the claim language to modify the common identifier each time the identifier is communicated through the distributed system, the claims should reflect the step and not merely “captured” from a collected health log.
The applicant also argues the claim incorporate features such as real-time communication monitoring, dynamic transaction tracing and automated issuance of test commands, which integrate the alleged abstract ideas into a practical application. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated prior, the claimed steps are performed on collected health log data and is not real-time monitoring except for the initial time from which the health log is collected. The claims likewise do not recite dynamic tracing as the claim step is also performed on the once collected data. A test command, as also argued prior, is sent out, but not executed so one cannot determine what the test command pertains to or is merely a message/email.
The applicant argues, page 17 of the Remarks, that the present claims address a computer-specific problem by correlating aggregate health logs and dependency information to automatically isolate error sources and apply appropriate determined resolutions, thereby improving the functioning of the distributed computer system. The examiner does not see such explicit language in the claims. The claims, as presently written, monitors for an alert indicating an error, then receives/collects health logs from components of the distributed system, and then merely analyzes the collected data to determine common values. While the claims do recite sending a test command, there is no language of the test command being executed. There is also language of applying a resolution to a particular component, but there are no details of what specific error is being resolved nor what the resolution entails. Such details would be beneficial.
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