CTFR 18/149,227 CTFR 79650 DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 have been examined. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 06-31 AIA The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Objections Claim 1 (and similarly claims 10 and 17) is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 5-6, applicant refers to both feature vectors of sub-pipelines and the reverse - a sub-pipeline of a feature vector. The change in order results in inconsistency. The examiner recommends deleting “of a feature vector” in line 6. Claim 2 (and similarly claims 11 and 18) is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, insert a comma after “comprises”. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 4 (and similarly claims 13 and 20) is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, insert a comma after “comprises” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation At least one claim is identified as including a non-limiting contingent limitation. “ The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. ” “ The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. ” See MPEP 2111.04(II). Regarding claim 1, the consolidating step is not required to be performed when the correlation quantity does not exceed a correlation threshold (e.g. see claim 8). Thus, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the method of claim 1 only performs the steps prior to the last paragraph. Regarding claim 7, again, the consolidating step is not required for reasoning set forth above. As such, under BRI, claim 7 does not add any further limitation onto claim 1. Regarding claim 8, the replacing step is not required for reasoning set forth above. As such, under BRI, claim 8 does not add any further limitation onto claim 1 (e.g. when the threshold is not exceeded). Paragraph [0022] of the specification states “ [a] computer readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media. ” Thus, the media of claims 17-20 is limited to only non-transitory embodiments. Consistent with this interpretation, the examiner recommends inserting --non-transitory-- before “computer-readable” in claim 17, line 3, to explicitly set forth the limitation applied thereto. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 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. The claims recite the following limitations for which there is a lack of antecedent basis: In claim 1, lines 6-7, “the respective processing pipeline”. In claim 4, “the respective numerical values determined for the process pipelines”. Are these the values of claim 1 or claim 4? In claim 10, lines 9-10, “the respective processing pipeline”. In claim 13, “the respective numerical values determined for the process pipelines”. Are these the values of claim 10 or claim 13? In claim 17, lines 10-11, “the respective processing pipeline”. In claim 20, “the respective numerical values determined for the process pipelines”. Are these the values of claim 17 or claim 20? All dependent claims are rejected due to their dependence on an indefinite claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (hereafter “SMET”) (MPEP 2106(III)), all claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (e.g. process, machine, and article of manufacture). Referring to step 2A (prong 1) of the SMET (MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)), claim 1 recites “ analyzing process pipelines of the computing environment to identify respective nodes of the process pipelines; converting the process pipelines into feature vectors of sub-pipelines, wherein a sub-pipeline of a feature vector comprises multiple nodes of the respective process pipeline of the process pipelines; encoding the feature vectors of sub-pipelines into respective numerical values; generating a correlation matrix based on an association of each respective feature vector with its respective numerical values; determining, by the at least one processor based on evaluating correlation-quantity-based information encoded in the correlation matrix, a correlation quantity indicative of similarity between respective nodes of process pipelines of the computing environment; and initiating consolidating of the respective nodes of the process pipelines based on the correlation quantity having a predefined relationship with a correlation threshold for consolidating nodes of process pipelines within the computing environment. ” These steps amount to a mental process (including one or more of an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) that can be performed in the human mind (with or without the aid of pen and paper) (MPEP 2106.04(a) and 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Specifically, a human can view/analyze graphical representations of pipelines (e.g. those shown in FIG.7A), convert them into feature vectors of sub-pipelines (e.g. as shown in FIG.7B), encode the sub-pipelines into numerical values (e.g. numbering the sub-pipelines as shown in the ID column in FIG.7B), generate a correlation matrix (e.g. as shown in FIG.7D) based on similarities between the sub-pipelines, and determine which nodes are similar based on the values in the correlation matrix evaluate where nodes could be consolidated based on the correlation matrix values given a threshold. Consolidating nodes reduces the number of nodes and thus the number of processing steps. Thus, claim 1, when considering all limitations therein, recites an abstract idea in the grouping of mental processes. Note also that, under BRI, that the entire last paragraph is not required by the method, and the steps prior to the last paragraph still are grouped as a mental process. In step 2A (prong 2), the additional element of at least one processor to perform a subset of the steps (analyzing and determining) is a generic component being use as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Per the courts, this does integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), 6 th bullet. In step 2B, the at least one processor, alone or in combination with other limitations of the claim does not amount to significantly more, per the courts. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A), 2nmd enumerated list, element (i). Thus, claim 1 is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 2-4 and 5-9 set forth steps (e.g. converting, categorizing, encoding, generating a matrix, evaluating, detecting, determining, pre-processing, etc.) that fall into the category of mental processes. For instance, such steps may involve creating tables shown in FIGs.4B-4D and 7B-7D, and creating a matrix shown in FIG.7D). These clams recite no additional elements and, as such, the claims are not patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101 since there is no integration into a practical application or significantly more. Further, note alternatively that claims 7-8 include contingent limitations that are not required to be performed (i.e., when consolidation is not initiated in claim 1). Under this BRI, claims 7-8 are not patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101 for similar reasoning as claim 1. Claim 10 includes the mental process of claim 1 and includes additional elements comprising a memory and at least one processor in communication, where the processor is to perform the mental process. Such additional elements amount to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and/or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Per the courts, as described above, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor does it amount to significantly more. Thus, claim 10 is not patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 11-13 and 15-16 are not patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101 for similarly reasoning as claims 2-4 and 6-7, respectively. That is, these claims only add to the mental process and do not add any additional elements that would integrate the mental process into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Claim 17 includes the mental process of claim 1 and includes additional elements comprising a computer program product including one or more computer-readable storage media and program instructions thereon readable by at least one processor circuit to perform the mental process. Such additional elements amount to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and/or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Per the courts, as described above, this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor does it amount to significantly more. Thus, claim 17 is not patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 18-20 are not patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101 for similarly reasoning as claims 2-4, respectively. That is, these claims only add to the mental process and do not add any additional elements that would integrate the mental process into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Allowable Subject Matter All claims are allowed over the prior art. Response to Arguments Applicant argues on pp.11-13 of the response that the steps of claim 1 cannot be practically performed in the human mind. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s steps broadly amount to analyzing a flowchart (pipeline), creating sub-pipelines, assigning numbers to the different sub-pipelines, filling out a correlation matrix, and referencing the matrix to determine similarity among the sub-pipelines by comparing a value in the matrix to a threshold. The examiner does not see how these steps can’t practically be performed in the human mind, particularly for smaller process pipelines. As the pipelines become larger, the steps becomes less practical to perform in the mind, but applicant’s claims cover any size pipelines. Applicant’s addition of a processor to perform some of the steps does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more, as explained in the 101 rejection. On pages 13-14 of the response, applicant argues that node consolidation, reducing dimensionality, etc. would integrate the exception into a practical application. However, this is not persuasive and these limitations are not required by claim 1. Even where they are required in claims 10 and 17, the mental process of consolidating nodes in a pipeline generates fewer nodes so that processing of those pipelines is reduced. This results from the mental process itself and this cannot be the improvement. From MPEP 2106.05(a), “ It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. ” On pages 14-15 of the response, applicant argues that at least one limitation is not well known, routine, or conventional activity, and, thus, amounts to significantly more. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The only additional elements are a processor (and in some cases a memory) that are used to implement the abstract idea. Per the courts, this does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application, nor does it amount to significantly more. The question of whether the additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional only comes into play when the additional elements are insignificant extra solution activity. And, the examiner has not identified any such activity. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 David J. Huisman whose telephone number is 571-272-4168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:30 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jyoti Mehta, can be reached at 571-270-3995. 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. /David J. Huisman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183 Application/Control Number: 18/149,227 Page 2 Art Unit: 2183 Application/Control Number: 18/149,227 Page 3 Art Unit: 2183 Application/Control Number: 18/149,227 Page 4 Art Unit: 2183 Application/Control Number: 18/149,227 Page 5 Art Unit: 2183 Application/Control Number: 18/149,227 Page 6 Art Unit: 2183 Application/Control Number: 18/149,227 Page 7 Art Unit: 2183 Application/Control Number: 18/149,227 Page 8 Art Unit: 2183 Application/Control Number: 18/149,227 Page 9 Art Unit: 2183 Application/Control Number: 18/149,227 Page 10 Art Unit: 2183 Application/Control Number: 18/149,227 Page 11 Art Unit: 2183
Prosecution Insights