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 .
This non-final action is responsive to the application filed on 7/16/23.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
The claimed invention (claims 1-20) is directed to an abstract without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Exemplary Claim 1 is ineligible
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
Based on the plain meaning of the words in the claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 involves a system determining generation dates for historical data, identifying attributes of the historical data outputs, indicating expected output attributes based on the identified attributes, generating an error threshold, applying the error threshold to an output, and generating an alert when the output generated by the data pipeline triggers the error threshold, all of which encompass mental judgments, observations, choices and/or evaluations.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claims recite at least one step or act as described above. Thus, the claim is to, e.g., a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations is that those steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Specifically, the independent claims recite “determines generation dates,” “identifies attributes,” “indicates expected output attributes,” “generates an error threshold,” “applies the error threshold to an output,” and “generates an alert” based on the mentally judged “when the output generated by the data pipeline triggers the error threshold.” Simply, these mental operations involve generic and at a high level observations and mental processing (evaluations) of data, particularly with respect to observing, examining, and making judgments or opinions (e.g., triggering an error) based on the data.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The “retrieves historical data outputs generated by the data pipeline” and recited “data pipeline” are insignificant extra-solution activity of input/output data gathering (See obtaining information, CyberSource, and also consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial). Further, “generates an alert” is insignificant extra-solution activity of determining a system malfunction (In re Meyers).
See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and/or output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and/or outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Further, the claim recites generic hardware (e.g., “processor”) which provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) 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; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
Further, the claims recite a generic “output model” which is merely an attempt to apply the abstract idea and provides nothing more than merely result/outcome of the model (e.g., “indicates one or more expected output”).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, there are additional elements which were shown to be merely insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (e.g., input/output, type of source data) and an attempt to apply the abstract ideas to a generic computer and/or technological field), which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The other independent claims (e.g., 8 and 15) are rejected based on a similar rationale.
The dependent claims are rejected based on a similar rationale, all of which either merely recite insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering or an attempt to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and/or technological field.
Claim 2 recites applying the error threshold, determining an amount of error, and generating a historical error report, all of which are mental processes of observing data such as the historical data outputs and performing an evaluation to determine the applied error threshold and historical error report.
Claim 3 generically recites processing data outputs, generating (mental) models, and generating an output model based on the individual models, all of which are mental processes and are merely an attempt to apply the recited “models” as a result and/or outcome without any description of the actual performance of the models.
Claim 4 recites insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving a user request and retrieving historical data outputs, both of which are merely data gathering involving input/output.
Claim 5 recites the type of historical data which is insignificant extra-solution activity of a data source or type (see, e.g., limiting a database index to XML tags, Intellectual Ventures I LLC).
Claim 6 recites the data pipeline comprising a data storage or data lake, which is merely insignificant extra-solution activity of a data source or type (selecting information based on types of information, Electric Power Group).
Claim 7 recites the error threshold comprising a particular range of data, which is merely insignificant extra-solution activity of limiting the type of data or source of data.
The remaining dependent claim recite similar limitations and are rejected based on the same rationale as above.
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: “data ingestion component,” “training component,” and “monitoring component” in claim 1 (and corresponding dependent claims).
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim limitation 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. That is, the recited components (e.g., “data ingestion component,” “training component,” and “monitoring component”) are not described using the necessary, sufficient structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lavrentyev et al. (US 20200210263, Herein “Lavrentyev”).
Regarding claim 1, Lavrentyev teaches A data pipeline monitoring system to determine output attributes of a data pipeline (anomaly determination (abstract)), the system comprising:
a memory that stores executable components; and a processor, operatively coupled to the memory, that executes the executable components, the executable components (computer system [0011]) comprising:
a data ingestion component that:
retrieves historical data outputs generated by the data pipeline (training sample [0102]); and determines generation dates for the historical data outputs (time intervals contained within the monitoring period selected accordance with determined characteristics [0102]; by using the time components, the model can be trained and used to determine the error threshold more accurately [0108]);
a training component that:
identifies one or more attributes of the historical data outputs (using the sample data, train the forecasting model [0103]); and generates an output model that indicates one or more expected output attributes based on the one or more identified attributes of the historical data outputs (using the trained forecasting model, forecast plurality of feature values for a forecast window [0011]); generates an error threshold based on the output model (calculate error threshold [0020] based on the determined forecasting model [0100]); and
a monitoring component that:
applies the error threshold to an output generated by the data pipeline; and generates an alert when the output generated by the data pipeline triggers the error threshold (anomaly detection based on error exceeding the error threshold [0011]).
Regarding claim 5, Lavrentyev teaches the limitations of claim 1, as above.
Furthermore, Lavrentyev teaches The system of claim 1 wherein the historical data outputs indicate historical behavior of the data pipeline (training sample data [0103] characterized by such data as telemetry data, a particular monitoring period, pipeline such as denoising, reducing, or eliminating, invalid data samples, removal of gaps of data, conversions, etc., all characterizing the received data [0101]).
Regarding claim 7, Lavrentyev teaches the limitations of claim 1, as above.
Furthermore, Lavrentyev teaches The system of claim 1 wherein the error threshold comprises a range of allowable data characteristics (a range below a set percentage (e.g., above or below 0.9) [0128]).
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 1 – see above.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 5 – see above.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 7 – see above.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 1 – see above.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 5 – see above.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 7 – see above.
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) 2, 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavrentyev in view of Huang et al. (US 20200293653, Herein “Huang”).
Regarding claim 2, Lavrentyev teaches the limitations of claim 1, as above.
However, Lavrentyev fails to specifically teach The system of claim 1 wherein the monitoring component further: applies the error threshold to the historical data outputs; determines an amount of errors present in the historical data outputs; and generates a historical error report that indicates the amount of errors present in the historical data outputs.
Yet, in a related art, Huang discloses alert generation based on a count of detected anomalies over a period of time such that when the count reaches a threshold number of anomalies, an alert notification is generated [0082], corresponding with error threshold [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention’s effective filing date to combine the threshold number of anomalies based alert for reporting to user of Huang with the error and error threshold determination of Lavrentyev to have applies the error threshold to the historical data outputs; determines an amount of errors present in the historical data outputs; and generates a historical error report that indicates the amount of errors present in the historical data outputs. The combination would allow for, according to the motivation of Huang, improved data processing for performing anomaly detection [0002] based on more task-specific algorithms that are based more specifically as well on a specific number of anomalies before generating the alert to provide for the user flexibility in determining anomaly alerts with respect to the predictions [0007]; the count determining a flexible and more meaningful estimate of a detected anomaly, especially over a particular period of time [0082].
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 2 – see above.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 2 – see above.
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavrentyev in view of Qiu et al. (US 20200311603, Herein “Qiu”).
Regarding claim 3, Lavrentyev teaches the limitations of claim 1, as above.
However, Lavrentyev fails to specifically teach The system of claim 1 wherein the training component further: processes each of the historical data outputs; generates individual models for each of the historical data outputs; and generates the output model of the historical data set based on the individual models for each of the historical data outputs and the generation dates.
Yet, in a related art, Qiu discloses training multiple machine learning models with historical data and data identifying trends and patterns in the historical data [0019], the historical data including such data as day or days the resources were used [0015].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention’s effective filing date to combine the individual models for each of the outputs and generating output model based on the models of Qiu with the generating a predictive model of Lavrentyev to have processes each of the historical data outputs; generates individual models for each of the historical data outputs; and generates the output model of the historical data set based on the individual models for each of the historical data outputs and the generation dates. The combination would allow for, according to the motivation of Qiu, using multiple trained machine learning models each indicating anomaly scores indicating anomalous usage/behavior such that each model may generate an anomaly score related to a particular phenomenon important to the anomaly detection, thus providing a more comprehensive review and analysis of the monitored behaviors [0034].
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 3 – see above.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 3 – see above.
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavrentyev in view of Adnan et al. (US 11,940,983, Herein “Adnan”).
Regarding claim 4, Lavrentyev teaches the limitations of claim 1, as above.
However, Lavrentyev fails to specifically teach The system of claim 1 wherein the ingestion component further:
receives a user request that specifies the historical data outputs; and
retrieves the historical data outputs generated by the data pipeline based on the user request.
Yet, in a related art, Adnan discloses user request including historical data for performing a testing service, such as involving performing anomaly detection (abstract, figs. 2 to 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention’s effective filing date to combine the user request specified the historical data outputs such that the historical data outputs are generated based on the user request of Adnan with the anomaly detection modeling of Lavrentyev to have receives a user request that specifies the historical data outputs; and retrieves the historical data outputs generated by the data pipeline based on the user request. The combination would allow for, according to the motivation of Adnan, allowing users the opportunity to utilize the improved capabilities for making accurate and useful predictions that otherwise remain difficult to user for the users, in part because they tend to require extensive knowledge and experience (cols. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 4 – see above.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 4 – see above.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavrentyev in view of Pietro (US 20210092026).
Regarding claim 6, Lavrentyev teaches the limitations of claim 1, as above.
Furthermore, Lavrentyev teaches The system of claim 1 wherein the data pipeline comprises at least one of a data storage system or a data lake system (saved data [0102], the training data stored as a training sample data [0103]).
However, in an effort to advance prosecution, Peitro makes abundantly clear data lake system as follows: data lake passed on the data lake of telemetry data (abstract, cols. 1 and 2, [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention’s effective filing date to combine the data lake of Pietro with the pipeline analysis and modeling of Lavrentyev to have data lake. The combination would allow for, according to the motivation of Peitro, maintaining a data lake of telemetry data obtained by the service allowing the computer networks to generate machine learning model in a more dynamic way for detecting issues, particularly with respect to the conveniently stored data lake of network telemetry data [0002] and [0009].
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 6 – see above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-5334. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri; 8am-5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cesar Paula can be reached on 571-272-4128. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form
/JASON T EDWARDS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2145
Prosecution Insights