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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 12, 2026 has been entered.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independents claim 1, which is analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a system for creating dashboards for inspecting performance metrics of hardware and software infrastructure. Thus, the claim is to a machine, 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.
The claim recites a system for creating dashboards for inspecting performance metrics of hardware and software infrastructure. The claim recites the steps: identify, in response to the request and using the contextual metadata, a subset comprising one or more database queries…; resolve the subset of database queries to obtain data corresponding to the one or more performance metrics, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
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 claim recites the additional elements of “maintain one or more data stores comprising contextual metadata, the contextual metadata being derived from network performance data ingested from a plurality of data sources associated with a plurality of network connected services”, “receive, from a user device, a request to inspect one or more performance metrics of at least one network connected service of the plurality of network connected services”, and “generate one or more dashboards responsive to the request to facilitate inspection of the one or more performance metrics, wherein the dashboards are dynamically assembled based on results of resolving the subset of database queries of database queries.” The claim also recites that the steps of “maintain one or more data stores…; receive a request…; identify, in response to the request and using the contextual metadata, a subset…; resolve the subset of database queries…; and generate one or more dashboard…”, are performed by a processing unit.
The additional elements “maintain one or more data stores comprising contextual metadata, the contextual metadata being derived from network performance data ingested from a plurality of data sources associated with a plurality of network connected services”, “receive, from a user device, a request to inspect one or more performance metrics of at least one network connected service of the plurality of network connected services”, and “generate one or more dashboards responsive to the request to facilitate inspection of the one or more performance metrics, wherein the dashboards are dynamically assembled based on results of resolving the subset of database queries of database queries” are mere data gathering, transmitting and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, transmitting and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement to the user device/user interface, they are just merely used as general means for collecting and outputting data. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified by the courts Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Further, the limitations “maintain one or more data stores…; receive a request…; identify, in response to the request and using the contextual metadata, a subset…; resolve the subset of database queries…; and generate one or more dashboard…” are recited as being performed by the processing unit. In the limitations “maintain one or more data stores…; receive a request…; and generate one or more dashboard…”, the processing unit is recited at a high level of generality and is used to perform gathering, transmitting and outputting function. In the limitations “identify, in response to the request and using the contextual metadata, a subset…; and resolve the subset of database queries…;” the processing unit is recited at a high level of generality and is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processing unit, computer-readable media and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvements to the technology, improvements to the functioning of the computer, the processing unit, the user device, the network, the user interface, or other technology. They just merely used as general means for collecting, displaying, updating data and performing the abstract idea. They do not recite a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claims, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
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.
The additional elements “maintain one or more data stores comprising contextual metadata, the contextual metadata being derived from network performance data ingested from a plurality of data sources associated with a plurality of network connected services”, “receive, from a user device, a request to inspect one or more performance metrics of at least one network connected service of the plurality of network connected services”, and “generate one or more dashboards responsive to the request to facilitate inspection of the one or more performance metrics, wherein the dashboards are dynamically assembled based on results of resolving the subset of database queries of database queries”, were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data transmitting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements of “maintain one or more data stores comprising contextual metadata, the contextual metadata being derived from network performance data ingested from a plurality of data sources associated with a plurality of network connected services”, “receive, from a user device, a request to inspect one or more performance metrics of at least one network connected service of the plurality of network connected services”, and “generate one or more dashboards responsive to the request to facilitate inspection of the one or more performance metrics, wherein the dashboards are dynamically assembled based on results of resolving the subset of database queries of database queries” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering, transmitting and outputting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processing unit to perform limitations “maintain one or more data stores…; receive a request…; identify, in response to the request and using the contextual metadata, a subset…; resolve the subset of database queries…; and generate one or more dashboard”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding independent claims 8 and 15, Alice Corp. establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent claim 8 directed to a method, independent claim 15 directed to a system, are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20, have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent- ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 9 and 16, the claims recite the additional element wherein the one or more dashboards are generated on demand in response the request…, are mere data gathering, transmitting and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, transmitting and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. (See claim 1 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 3, 10 and 17, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting generate a second set of performance metrics…, that fall under the category of Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 4, 11, and 18, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting dynamically modify the generated or more dashboards based on updated query resolution results, are mere data gathering, updating, transmitting and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, transmitting and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. (See claim 1 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 5, 12, and 19, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting decouple the obtained data, normalized the decoupled data, identify at least one label for the decoupled data to generate labeled data, and generate the contextual metadata…, which are additional elements and insignificant extra-solution activity. These elements are well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 6, 13, and 20, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the request received from the user device comprise natural language text…processing the natural language text using a natural language processing (NLP) model, which are additional elements and insignificant extra-solution activity. These elements are well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 7 and 14, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the plurality of database queries is comprise in a query chain…, that fall under the category of Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Therefore, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not draw to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Castle et al. (hereinafter Castle, US 2021/0152455).
Regarding to claim 1, Castle discloses a system comprising:
a processing unit configured to:
maintain one or more data stores comprising contextual metadata, the contextual metadata being derived from network performance data ingested from a plurality of data sources associated with a plurality of network connected services (para [0049], The VSE Platform captures network monitoring data from customer information technology network compute nodes (e.g., server computing devices), network nodes (e.g., routers, switches, hubs, bridges, gateways, modems, wireless or wired access points, or other types physical or virtual computing devices that connect end point computing devices to a network), and software applications and services. The customer end point computing devices are physical or virtual computing devices utilized by end users in performing customer enterprise operations, such as desktop computers, laptop computers, cellular smartphones, tablet computers, printers, medical equipment, manufacturing equipment, facility environmental control devices (e.g., air conditioning or power supply control), among many others; para [0050], The inventory of customer digital resources can be stored to a digital resource inventory relational database that includes identifiers for the nodes, end points, software applications, or other digital resources in a customer's network. The digital resource inventory relational database can include a wide variety of data and information that is associated with each identifier within the relational database, including, but not limited to, as Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses, media access control (“MAC”) addresses, hardware model or serial numbers that identify the manufacture and type of device, a mapping of the networks and subnetworks to which the nodes and end point devices are connected, and an inventory of installed software applications and services, or geographic location data; para [0051], The customer's network digital resources can also be mapped automatically by capturing and analyzing network traffic data to ascertain identifiers and other relevant information for customer digital resources that is then stored automatically to the digital resource inventory relational database. In some cases, the network or compute nodes include an integrated database, such as a management information base (“MIB”), that includes identification and configuration data, such as an IP address, port identifiers, an inventory of installed software and firmware, hardware serial numbers, and available storage space, among other types of information. Where available, the integrated MIB (or an equivalent) database can be retrieved by the system in connection with automatically creating a customer network inventory);
receive, from a user device, a request to inspect one or more performance metrics of at least one network connected service of the plurality of network connected services (para [0067], The Management Workstation Functionality Module provides “jumpbox” functionality that allows a provider end user to connect to the VSE Platform and the customer's network. Enabling a connection point to a customer's network allows provider agents or representatives to more efficiently perform remediation activities in response to a support request from a customer. As an example, if a customer end user is experiencing difficulty performing a particular function, such as sending an email, a provider agent can utilize the jumpbox to access the customer network and replicate the function (e.g., sending an email) to better diagnose problems; para [0103], The Ecosystem Overview Dashboard GUI can optionally include a help desk support request feature available by selecting the Open a RMAC Ticket function on FIG. 6 to open the RMAC Submission Form user interface shown in FIG. 7. The RMAC Submission Form can be configured to open as a separate window or as a web-based interface within an Internet browser software application running on the end user's computing device. The end user enters information into the RMAC Submission Form such as the end user name, contact information, and a narrative description of the support request before selecting the Submit function to transmit the support request to the provider);
identify, in response to the request and using the contextual metadata, a subset comprising one or more database queries selected from a plurality of database queries generated independently of the request and stored in the system (para [0048], The reporting server receives the network monitoring data from the SQL database cluster and passes the data to the dashboard servers. The reporting server can enhance system operation by providing a secure, faster operating storage facility that periodically queries the SQL database cluster and stores the network monitoring data before transmission to the Dashboard Servers. The reporting servers control the flow of data from the SQL database cluster to avoid overloading the database cluster and diminishing performance; para [0076], The Data Aggregation Database software platform harvests or “pre-fetches” longer-term network monitoring data previously captured by the NMS platform and performs periodic data captures from certain software applications when the NMS platform is not configured to interface with a given software application. As shown in more detail below, the Dashboard GUIs are configured to display network monitoring metrics and information over varying time intervals. As an example, the Dashboard GUIs can display a current memory utilization as updated every fifteen minutes or as calculated over the last twenty-four hours, seven days, thirty days, or another selected time period. The Data Aggregation Database platform pre-fetches the longer-term monitoring metrics (e.g., over the last twenty-four hours, seven days, or thirty days) for display on the Dashboard GUIs. To promote efficiency, the longer-term monitoring metrics can be pre-fetched during off peak times, like after close of business or at night; para [0077], The Data Aggregation Database software platform captures current network monitoring data from such software applications at periodic intervals, like every fifteen minutes. The Data Aggregation Database software platform periodically captures network monitoring data from software applications that include, but are not limited to, a customer's firewall, intrusion detection software, intrusion prevention software, log management software, and the National Vulnerability Database, which is a United State government database of cybersecurity vulnerability management data that can be utilized to automate vulnerability management; para [0070], The NPM software module gathers real-time performance metrics for both physical and virtual network nodes and end point devices. The NPM software module is designed to identify, diagnose, and resolve network related issues. The NPM software module periodically polls customer network nodes to request Central Processing Unit (“CPU”) or “Compute” utilization data, availability network monitoring data that includes an operational status, network traffic flow data, memory usage data, and storage utilization data, among other types of other network monitoring data);
resolve the subset of database queries to obtain data corresponding to the one or more performance metrics (para [088], The periodically updated network monitoring metric information has the advantage of allowing customers to make expedient, informed, and accurate decisions concerning business operations and to diagnose and resolve problems. Providing a view into the network monitoring metrics over longer time intervals has the advantage of allowing customers to gain insight into how the metrics are changing over time and whether current metric values are deviating from typical values observed. This in turn permits more effective management of information technology network resources and better informs decisions about budgeting and network design, among other issues. For example, if a customer is experiencing a particular problem with memory or storage utilization, a constant utilization percentage over time might indicate that the installation of additional memory or storage devices is not necessary given that demand is relatively stable. Instead, the customer may conclude that reallocation of current resources is a more efficient resolution to observed memory or storage availability limitations); and
generate one or more dashboards responsive to the request to facilitate inspection of the one or more performance metrics, wherein the dashboards are dynamically assembled based on results of resolving the subset of database queries (para [0087], The Dashboard GUIs are generated by the dashboard server based on network monitoring data and network monitoring metrics received from the reporting server. Each of the Dashboard GUIs is updated, or periodically refreshed, according to provider, customer, or end user defined preferences, such as specifying the refresh time interval as well as the particular network monitoring metrics that are updated. In one embodiment, the Dashboard GUIs are refreshed every fifteen minutes to provide near real-time network monitoring metric information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Showalter’s to incorporate the features taught by Bjonerud above, for the purpose of providing more effectiveness in performing matching based on the previous loan offers. Since Showalter discloses the algorithm performs a best fit match between the loan offer and the multiple loan purchasers using the loan purchaser criteria, Bjonerud discloses the algorithm performs a best fit match between the loan offer and the multiple loan purchasers using the loan purchaser criteria and responses of the multiple loan purchaser to previous loan offers distributed thereto, as described above, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination of Showalter and Bjonerud would have yield predictable results in performing matching between the loan offer and the loan purchasers.
Regarding to claim 2, Castle discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more dashboards are generated on demand in response to the request (para [0056], The VSEs in turn each implement a Wolfpac software package, or Functionality Module, which is a virtual appliance that is configured to provide a targeted set of functions that can be delivered to customers on-demand so as to more effectively manage system computing, storage, and other network resources; and para [0138], “In addition to providing Dashboard GUIs, the provider system can also make network monitoring data and metrics available through a reporting interface. The reporting interface can be configured to generate and display reports to provider or customer end users over a selected date and time range. The reports can be configured for display within an Internet browser software application integrated with a provider or a customer's end user computing device. Alternatively, the reports can be generated and configured for download to an end user computing device in a selected file format, such as a Portable Document Format (“PDF”), a comma-separated (“.CSV”) file format, or a spreadsheet format).
Regarding to claim 3, Castle discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processing unit is further configured to generate a second set of performance metrics correlated to the requested one or more performance metrics, responsive to the requested inspection of one or more performance metrics, the second set of performance metrics being generated based on the contextual metadata (para [0122], The Node Specific Performance Metrics section of the Compute Summary Dashboard GUI displays availability and utilization network monitoring metrics for the compute nodes selected in the Hierarchy of Compute Nodes section, (equivalent to the claimed “a second set of performance metrics”) as updated every fifteen minutes and as measured within various time intervals, including the last twenty-four hours, seven days, and thirty days. The availability and utilization network monitoring metrics are updated every fifteen minutes through data pulled from the NMS platform).
Regarding to claim 4, Castle discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processing unit is further configured to dynamically modify the generated one or more dashboards based on updated query resolution results (para [0087], The Dashboard GUIs are generated by the dashboard server based on network monitoring data and network monitoring metrics received from the reporting server. Each of the Dashboard GUIs is updated, or periodically refreshed, according to provider, customer, or end user defined preferences, such as specifying the refresh time interval as well as the particular network monitoring metrics that are updated. In one embodiment, the Dashboard GUIs are refreshed every fifteen minutes to provide near real-time network monitoring metric information).
Regarding to claim 5, Castle discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processing unit is further configured to: decouple the obtained data from its data source; normalized the decoupled data; identify at least one label for the decoupled data to generate labeled data; and generate the contextual metadata, wherein the contextual metadata at least comprises the labeled data (para [0055], the present inventive systems also include databases and Application Programming Interfaces (“APIs”) that enable the systems to normalize or “wash” monitoring data and other information captured from a customer's network. Customer information technology networks include nodes, end point devices, and software applications created by different manufacturers and vendors that utilize different data formats, variations of standard protocols, and differing terminology. These variations between devices and software applications are mapped so that provider APIs can normalize the network monitoring data for display on the Dashboard GUIs; para [0087], the Dashboard GUIs display the most recent metric value, as updated every fifteen minutes, in rectangular areas that include a label for the network monitoring metric. The longer-term, or durational network monitoring metrics are generally displayed with a label indicating the time interval (e.g., Last 24 Hours, Last 7 Days, or Last 30 Days).
Regarding to claim 6, Castle discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the request received from the user device comprises natural language text, and wherein the processing unit is further configured to identify and resolve the subset of database queries based in part on processing the natural language text using a natural language processing (NLP) model (para [0055], For example, some devices may report a fault with an alert that includes text describing the fault, such as a software process being “offline.” In other cases, a device might simply report an alert with a status code that must be deciphered to ascertain whether the status is a fault condition, and if so, the precise fault being reported, such as a software process being “failed.” The alert text describing a process as “offline” can be mapped to the status code and the status of the process being “failed.” Once the variations are mapped, such alerts can be displayed in a consistent format using consistent terminology on the Dashboard GUIs).
Regarding to claim 7, Castle discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of database queries is comprised in a query chain, and wherein the subset of database queries is resolved in a sequential manner (para [0013], The VSE Platform then queries a maintenance database using the identification and configuration data to retrieve maintenance and support data corresponding to the digital resource, such as whether the manufacture is providing software or other updates for the digital resource or whether the digital resource is beyond or nearing the end of a maintenance cycle. The dashboard server configures the Ecosystem Overview Dashboard GUI to display the maintenance and support metrics as part of a single integrated interface. The maintenance and support metrics can include an End of Support Devices metric and an Expired Maintenance Devices metric that show the number and/or identifiers for digital resources that are nearing or beyond the end of a support life or maintenance cycle).
Claims 8-14 are written in method and contain the same limitations found in claims 1-7 described above, therefore, are rejected by the same rationale.
Claims 15-20 are written in method and contain the same limitations found in claims 1-6 described above, therefore, are rejected by the same rationale.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
7. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
I. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more (see more details above).
Step 2A-Prong One
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that “The Amended Claim Is Not Directed to an Abstract Idea and The Claim Cannot Be Performed in the Human Mind”, the Examiner the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the claim recites a system for creating dashboards for inspecting performance metrics of hardware and software infrastructure. The claim recites the steps: identify, in response to the request and using the contextual metadata, a subset comprising one or more database queries…; resolve the subset of database queries to obtain data corresponding to the one or more performance metrics, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitations “maintain one or more data stores comprising contextual metadata, the contextual metadata being derived from network performance data ingested from a plurality of data sources associated with a plurality of network connected services”, “receive, from a user device, a request to inspect one or more performance metrics of at least one network connected service of the plurality of network connected services”, and “generate one or more dashboards responsive to the request to facilitate inspection of the one or more performance metrics, wherein the dashboards are dynamically assembled based on results of resolving the subset of database queries of database queries” are additional elements and are analyzing under Step 2A-Prong Two.
Step 2A-Prong Two
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that “The Claim Integrates Any Alleged Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application”, the Examiner the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
The additional elements “maintain one or more data stores comprising contextual metadata, the contextual metadata being derived from network performance data ingested from a plurality of data sources associated with a plurality of network connected services”, “receive, from a user device, a request to inspect one or more performance metrics of at least one network connected service of the plurality of network connected services”, and “generate one or more dashboards responsive to the request to facilitate inspection of the one or more performance metrics, wherein the dashboards are dynamically assembled based on results of resolving the subset of database queries of database queries” are mere data gathering, transmitting and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, transmitting and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Further, the limitations “maintain one or more data stores…; receive a request…; identify, in response to the request and using the contextual metadata, a subset…; resolve the subset of database queries…; and generate one or more dashboard…” are recited as being performed by the processing unit. In the limitations “maintain one or more data stores…; receive a request…; and generate one or more dashboard…”, the processing unit is recited at a high level of generality and is used to perform gathering, transmitting and outputting function. In the limitations “identify, in response to the request and using the contextual metadata, a subset…; and resolve the subset of database queries…;” the processing unit is recited at a high level of generality and is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processing unit, computer-readable media and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvements to the technology, improvements to the functioning of the computer, the processing unit, the user device, the network, the user interface, or other technology. They just merely used as general means for collecting, displaying, updating data and performing the abstract idea. They do not recite a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claims, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that “The Claim Recites Significantly More Than Any Alleged Abstract Idea”, the Examiner the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements of “maintain one or more data stores comprising contextual metadata, the contextual metadata being derived from network performance data ingested from a plurality of data sources associated with a plurality of network connected services”, “receive, from a user device, a request to inspect one or more performance metrics of at least one network connected service of the plurality of network connected services”, and “generate one or more dashboards responsive to the request to facilitate inspection of the one or more performance metrics, wherein the dashboards are dynamically assembled based on results of resolving the subset of database queries of database queries” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering, transmitting and outputting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processing unit to perform limitations “maintain one or more data stores…; receive a request…; identify, in response to the request and using the contextual metadata, a subset…; resolve the subset of database queries…; and generate one or more dashboard”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Accordingly, the 101 rejection is maintained.
II. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In response the Applicant’s argument regarding to claim 1 that Castle does not disclose “identify, in response to the request and using the contextual metadata, a subset comprising one or more database queries selected from a plurality of database queries generated independently of the request and stored in the system”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Castle discloses in para [0070], The NPM software module gathers real-time performance metrics for both physical and virtual network nodes and end point devices. The NPM software module is designed to identify, diagnose, and resolve network related issues. The NPM software module periodically polls customer network nodes to request Central Processing Unit (“CPU”) or “Compute” utilization data, availability network monitoring data that includes an operational status, network traffic flow data, memory usage data, and storage utilization data, among other types of other network monitoring data (equivalent to the claimed “metadata”); in para [0076], The Data Aggregation Database software platform harvests or “pre-fetches” longer-term network monitoring data previously captured by the NMS platform and performs periodic data captures from certain software applications when the NMS platform is not configured to interface with a given software application. As shown in more detail below, the Dashboard GUIs are configured to display network monitoring metrics and information over varying time intervals. As an example, the Dashboard GUIs can display a current memory utilization as updated every fifteen minutes or as calculated over the last twenty-four hours, seven days, thirty days, or another selected time period. The Data Aggregation Database platform pre-fetches the longer-term monitoring metrics (e.g., over the last twenty-four hours, seven days, or thirty days) for display on the Dashboard GUIs. To promote efficiency, the longer-term monitoring metrics can be pre-fetched during off peak times, like after close of business or at night; and in para [0077], The Data Aggregation Database software platform captures current network monitoring data from such software applications at periodic intervals, like every fifteen minutes. The Data Aggregation Database software platform periodically captures network monitoring data from software applications that include, but are not limited to, a customer's firewall, intrusion detection software, intrusion prevention software, log management software, and the National Vulnerability Database, which is a United State government database of cybersecurity vulnerability management data that can be utilized to automate vulnerability management. Thus, in Castle’s, a plurality of database queries generated independently of the request and stored in the Data Aggregation Database platform. Therefore, Castle does disclose “identify, in response to the request and using the contextual metadata, a subset comprising one or more database queries selected from a plurality of database queries generated independently of the request and stored in the system” as claimed.
In response the Applicant’s argument regarding to claim 1 that Castle does not disclose “dynamically assembled based on results of resolving the subset of database queries”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Castle discloses
In response the Applicant’s argument regarding to claim 1 that Castle does not disclose “dynamically assembled based on results of resolving the subset of database queries”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Castle discloses in para [0087], The Dashboard GUIs are generated by the dashboard server based on network monitoring data and network monitoring metrics received from the reporting server. Each of the Dashboard GUIs is updated, or periodically refreshed, according to provider, customer, or end user defined preferences, such as specifying the refresh time interval as well as the particular network monitoring metrics that are updated. In one embodiment, the Dashboard GUIs are refreshed every fifteen minutes to provide near real-time network monitoring metric information. Thus, in Castle’s, the Dashboard GUIs are dynamically updated based on the particular network monitoring metrics that are updated and Dashboard GUIs are refreshed every fifteen minutes to provide near real-time network monitoring metric information. Therefore, Castle does disclose “dynamically assembled based on results of resolving the subset of database queries” as claimed.
In response the Applicant’s argument regarding to claim 3 that Castle does not disclose generate a second set of performance metrics, responsive to the requested inspection of one or more performance metrics, the second set of performance metrics generated based on the contextual metadata, the Examiner submits that Castle discloses in para [0122], “The Node Specific Performance Metrics section of the Compute Summary Dashboard GUI displays availability and utilization network monitoring metrics for the compute nodes selected in the Hierarchy of Compute Nodes section, (equivalent to the claimed “a second set of performance metrics”) as updated every fifteen minutes and as measured within various time intervals, including the last twenty-four hours, seven days, and thirty days. The availability and utilization network monitoring metrics are updated every fifteen minutes through data pulled from the NMS platform.” Therefore, Castle does disclose “generate a second set of performance metrics, responsive to the requested inspection of one or more performance metrics, the second set of performance metrics generated based on the contextual metadata” as claimed.
In response the Applicant’s argument regarding to claim 7 that Castle does not disclose wherein the plurality of database queries is comprised in a query chain, and wherein the portion of the plurality of database queries are resolved in a sequential manner, the Examiner submits that Castle discloses para [0013], The VSE Platform then queries a maintenance database using the identification and configuration data to retrieve maintenance and support data corresponding to the digital resource, such as whether the manufacture is providing software or other updates for the digital resource or whether the digital resource is beyond or nearing the end of a maintenance cycle. The dashboard server configures the Ecosystem Overview Dashboard GUI to display the maintenance and support metrics as part of a single integrated interface. The maintenance and support metrics can include an End of Support Devices metric and an Expired Maintenance Devices metric that show the number and/or identifiers for digital resources that are nearing or beyond the end of a support life or maintenance cycle. Therefore, Therefore, Castle does disclose “wherein the plurality of database queries is comprised in a query chain, and wherein the portion of the plurality of database queries are resolved in a sequential manner” as claimed.
Accordingly, the 102 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
9. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Brehmer et al. (US 2024/0077999) disclose a computing device identifies a plurality of metrics corresponding to one or more data sources. The device receives a first user input to add a first data visualization to a first visualization card in a first scene of the interactive presentation.
Song et al. (US 2018/0121856) disclose the system obtains, for a time interval, a set of performance metrics for one or more monitored systems. Next, the system aggregates the performance metrics by a processing factor associated with execution of the monitored system(s). The system then uses the aggregated performance metrics to calculate a performance score associated with the processing factor.
Gluzman Peregrine et al. (US 2014/0040306) disclose a performance analysis system that analyzes the performance of a business intelligence analytics application. The performance analysis system logs data associated with one or more queries of a database within the database.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner NGA B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-5PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached on (571) 272-6737. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 June 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights