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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recites a limitation(s) of determining that a first load cycle of an application has been completed, and comparing one or more of the following to identify an anomalous behavior of the application: the first load parameter associated with the first load cycle of the application and a second load parameter associated with a second load cycle of the application; the first execution parameter associated with the first load cycle of the application and a second execution parameter associated with the second load cycle of the application; and the first unload parameter associated with the first load cycle of the application and a second unload parameter associated with the second load cycle of the application, which is a mental process.
The claim(s) recites a series of steps and, therefore, is/are a process. The limitation(s), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “microprocessor,” “medium,” “memory,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses a user determining that a first load cycle of an application has been completed, and “comparing” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses the user comparing one or more of the following to identify an anomalous behavior of the application: the first load parameter associated with the first load cycle of the application and a second load parameter associated with a second load cycle of the application; the first execution parameter associated with the first load cycle of the application and a second execution parameter associated with the second load cycle of the application; and the first unload parameter associated with the first load cycle of the application and a second unload parameter associated with the second load cycle of the application. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, a step of retrieving, by the microprocessor, one or more of: a first load parameter associated with the first load cycle of the application, a first execution parameter associated with the first load cycle of the application, and a first unload parameter associated with the first load cycle of the application is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering parameter for use in the comparing step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, the claim(s) recites additional elements of “microprocessor,” “medium,” “memory,” which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic “microprocessor” performing a generic computer function of determining, retrieving, and comparing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim(s) does not provide any indication that the recited system/medium is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the step of “retrieving, by the microprocessor, one or more of: a first load parameter associated with the first load cycle of the application, a first execution parameter associated with the first load cycle of the application, and a first unload parameter associated with the first load cycle of the application” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. In addition, the additional elements of using “microprocessor,” “medium,” “memory” to perform the claimed invention amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Response to Remarks
The amendments overcome the rejections under 101 signal per se and 102.
Applicant's Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 101, the Remarks state, “A human looking at event values in a computer memory and making a comparison to identify an anomalous behavior is further outside of the ability of an un-aided human mind, even one with benefit of pen and paper.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Obtaining the claimed parameters could be viewing them from a monitor, or reading them from a printed document.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE LIN whose telephone number is (571)431-0706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached on (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.
/KATHERINE LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113