DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Amendment filed 01/28/2026.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Response to Amendment
In the instant amendment, claims 1, 4, 11, 14-16 and 18-19 have been amended.
The 35 USC §101 rejection over claims 1-20 is maintained in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 the claims are within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a method/apparatus/medium claims under Step 1.
However, the limitations “identifying, by the device and based on the trace data, a set of calls among the application programming interface calls that are frequently sent within a same portion of the sessions” and “quantifying, by the device, a latency savings expected to occur were the set of calls to be consolidated into a singular call instead of being made separately”, as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “identifying, by the device and based on the trace data, a set of calls among the application programming interface calls that are frequently co-occurring” and “quantifying, by the device, a latency savings expected to occur were the set of calls to be consolidated into a singular call instead of being made separately” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2 Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “by a device,”, “a device to execute a process”, “obtaining, by a device, trace data indicative of application programming interface calls sent during sessions between clients and an application accessible via a network” and “providing, by the device and to a user interface, a recommendation to consolidate the set of calls into a consolidated call that indicates the latency savings” The “by a device,”, and “a device to execute a process” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception. The addition element “obtaining, by a device, trace data indicative of application programming interface calls sent during sessions between clients and an application accessible via a network” and “providing, by the device and to a user interface, a recommendation to consolidate the set of calls into a consolidated call that indicates the latency savings” amount to a data gathering step and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claims 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 additional elements are “by a device,”, “a device to execute a process”, “obtaining, by a device, trace data indicative of application programming interface calls sent during sessions between clients and an application accessible via a network” and “providing, by the device and to a user interface, a recommendation to consolidate the set of calls into a consolidated call that indicates the latency savings” the mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, as discussed above, which does not amount to significantly more, thus, not an inventive concept, and the courts have identified gathering data, storing data, and outputting the result is well-understood, routine and conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept.. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, under prong 2, the “wherein the trace data comprises application performance monitoring trace data associated with the sessions” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, under prong 2, the “wherein the trace data comprises application performance monitoring trace data associated with the sessions” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the limitation “wherein identifying the set of calls that are frequently co- occurring: disregarding application performance monitoring trace data associated with the sessions, when the real user monitoring trace data is available for the sessions” is an additional metal process under prong 1.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the limitation “configuring, by the device, a gateway to perform the set of calls in response to receiving the consolidated call” is an additional metal process under prong 1.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the limitation “evaluating how frequently any two of the application programming interface calls 5 are made together within any particular bin in the time bins” is an additional metal process under prong 1. Under prong 2, the “using timestamps from the trace data associated with the application” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, under prong 2, the “wherein the latency savings is based in part on path performance metrics collected by the network” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the limitation “wherein identifying the set of calls comprises: replacing variable parameters in call paths associated with the set of calls with placeholders” is an additional metal process under prong 1.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, under prong 2, the “preventing, by the device, a further recommendation to consolidate the set of calls into a consolidated call from being provided to the user interface, based on a silence request from the user interface.” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 10, under prong 2, the “wherein the user interface is provided via an application performance monitoring (APM) platform” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9, 16 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0129688 to Colrain et al. (hereafter “Colrain”), in view of US 2015/0350211 to Burgess et al. (hereafter “Burgess”), US 2020/0117522 to Xiao et al. (hereafter “Xiao”), US 2009/0248652 to Iwayama et al. (hereafter “Iwayama”), US 2007/0083500 to Zibitsker, and US 2011/0161959 to Sharon et al. (hereafter “Sharon”)
As per claim 1, Colrain discloses a method comprising:
obtaining, by a device, trace data indicative of application programming interface calls sent made during sessions (paragraph 0090) between clients and an application accessible via a network (FIGs. 3-4; paragraphs 0089-0092: “monitors API calls to the Client-Driver for connection tests. In such an embodiment, the Client-Driver may have been configured for monitoring and detecting connection test calls to the interface(s) using techniques described above.”).
Colrain discloses a set of calls among the application programming interface calls (paragraphs 0089-0090), however, Colrain does not explicitly disclose the trace data indicating, for individual ones of the application programming interface calls, when the respective application programming interface call was sent; identifying, by the device and based on the trace data, a set of calls among the application programming interface calls that are frequently sent within a same portion of the sessions; quantifying, by the device, a latency savings expected to occur were the set of calls to be consolidated into a singular call instead of being made separately; and providing, by the device and to a user interface, a recommendation to consolidate the set of calls into a consolidated call that indicates the latency savings.
Burgess further discloses the trace data indicating, for individual ones of the application programming interface calls, when the respective application programming interface call was sent (paragraph 0069: “The logging module 310 creates a log tile that, contains “API call data” relating to communications transmitted to and from the interface computing device 104. The log file is stored on the interface computing device 104 and may contain a wide variety of API call data, including: (1) the time a communication was transmitted or received;”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Burgess into Colrain’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of communications transmitted to and from the custodian are routed through an external API, and communications transmitted to and from the interface computing device are routed through the external API (Burgess, paragraph 0006).
Xiao further discloses identifying, by the device and based on the trace data, a set of calls among the application programming interface calls that are frequently sent within a same portion of the sessions (FIGs. 2 and 5; paragraph 0036: “For example, the lightweight API creation and management module 205 may keep a record of a number of times the lightweight API has been sent in response to API requests over a period of time, and, if the number drops below a usage threshold, the lightweight API may be deleted.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] the lightweight API is identified and deleted based on the number drops below the threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Xiao into Colrain’s teaching and Burgess’ teaching because it would provide for the purpose of tracking of the usage of the lightweight API (Xiao, paragraph 0036).
Iwayama further discloses quantifying, by the device, a latency savings expected to occur were the set of calls to be consolidated into a singular call instead of being made separately (FIG. 3-5: paragraphs 0039-0041: “These response times are proportional to search times for the respective query formulas during independent processing. In the sequential processing method shown in FIG. 3, a total response time (equivalent to an average response time) is set to 31 T (3 T+13 T+15 T). Meanwhile, in the parallel processing method, the total response time is reduced to 28 T (7 T+15 T+6 T).).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Iwayama into Colrain’s teaching, Burgess’ teaching and Xiao’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of merged search is performed by using the query formula sets sequentially from the query formula set having the fastest estimated search speed (Iwayama, paragraph 0008).
Zibitsker further discloses a recommendation to consolidate the set of calls into a consolidated call (paragraphs 0040, 0042, 0071, and 0075-0076: “Each captured SQL request and corresponding statistics is assigned to a specific workload.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] adjusting number of SQLs in a workload) that indicates the latency savings (paragraphs 0065-0066 and 0068: “provide a list of performance tuning recommendations with estimated reduction of CPU time and number of I/O operations as a result of implementation each of the recommendations for analyzed group of SQL.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Zibitsker into Colrain’s teaching, Burgess’ teaching, Xiao’s teaching, and Iwayama’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of evaluating different alternatives and selecting the optimum performance management solution with a set of expectations, enhancing autonomic computing by generating periodic control measures which include recommendation to add or remove indexes and materialized views, change the level of concurrency, workloads priorities, improving the balance of the resource utilization, which provides a framework for a continuous process of the workload management by means of measuring the difference between the actual results and expected, understanding the cause of the difference, finding a new corrective solution and setting new expectations (Zibitsker, paragraph 0011).
Sharon further discloses providing, by the device and to a user interface, a recommendation to consolidate the set of calls into a consolidated call (FIGs. 3-4 and 7; paragraphs 0013, and 0032-0033).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Sharon into Colrain’s teaching, Burgess’ teaching, Xiao’s teaching, Iwayama’s teaching, and Zibitsker’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of evaluating different alternatives and selecting the optimum performance management solution with a set of expectations, enhancing autonomic computing by generating periodic control measures which include recommendation to add or remove indexes and materialized views, change the level of concurrency, workloads priorities, improving the balance of the resource utilization, which provides a framework for a continuous process of managing a flow of batch jobs that includes a memory that stores a plurality of jobs within a batch queue grouped together into one or more Services that each includes a job and a predecessor job (Sharon, paragraph 0004).
As per claim 11, it is an apparatus claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 20, it is a medium claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colrain in view of Burgess, Xiao, Iwayama, Zibitsker, Sharon, as applied to claims 1 and 11, and further in view of US 2004/0030747 to Oppermann.
As per claim 2, Colrain does not explicitly disclose wherein the trace data comprises application performance monitoring trace data associated with the sessions.
Oppermann further discloses wherein the trace data comprises application performance monitoring trace data associated with the sessions (paragraphs 0039 and 0068).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Oppermann into Colrain’s teaching, Burgess’ teaching, Xiao’s teaching, Iwayama’s teaching, Zibitsker’s teaching, and Sharon’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of each communication session can individually retrieve and replay the test input data, e.g., as if the communication sessions were established involving a plurality of client units (Oppermann, paragraph 0018).
As per claim 3, Colrain does not explicitly disclose wherein the trace data comprises real user monitoring trace data associated with the sessions.
Oppermann further discloses wherein the trace data comprises real user monitoring trace data associated with the sessions (paragraph 0090).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Oppermann into Colrain’s teaching, Burgess’ teaching, Xiao’s teaching, Iwayama’s teaching, Zibitsker’s teaching, and Sharon’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of each communication session can individually retrieve and replay the test input data, e.g., as if the communication sessions were established involving a plurality of client units (Oppermann, paragraph 0018).
As per claim 12, it is an apparatus claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 13, it is an apparatus claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 3. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colrain in view of Burgess, Xiao, Iwayama, Zibitsker, Sharon, and Oppermann, as applied to claim 3 and 13, and further in view of US 2007/0207800 to Daley et al. (hereafter “Daley”)
As per claim 4, Colrain does not explicitly disclose disregarding application performance monitoring trace data associated with the sessions, when the real user monitoring trace data is available for the sessions.
Oppermann further discloses disregarding application performance monitoring trace data associated with the sessions (paragraphs 0039 and 0068),
when the real user monitoring trace data is available for the sessions (paragraph 0090).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Oppermann into Colrain’s teaching, Smith’s teaching, Iwayama’s teaching, Zibitsker’s teaching, and Sharon’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of each communication session can individually retrieve and replay the test input data, e.g., as if the communication sessions were established involving a plurality of client units (Oppermann, paragraph 0018).
Daley further discloses disregarding application performance monitoring trace data (paragraph 0248: “The diagnostic/trace server may be responsible for ignoring duplicate diagnostic/trace data received from the electronic device.”))
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Daley into Colrain’s teaching, Burgess teaching, Xiao’s teaching, Iwayama’s teaching, Zibitsker’s teaching, Sharon’s teaching, and Oppermann’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of use of managed objects for diagnostics and monitoring of mobile/handheld electronic devices (Daley, paragraph 0031).
As per claim 14, it is an apparatus claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colrain in view of Burgess, Xiao, Iwayama, Zibitsker, and Sharon, as applied to claim 1 and 11, and further in view of US 2008/0177857 to Chakra et al. (hereafter “Chakra”)
As per claim 5, Colrain does not explicitly disclose configuring, by the device, a gateway to perform the set of calls in response to receiving the consolidated call.
Chakra further discloses configuring, by the device, a gateway to perform the set of calls in response to receiving the consolidated call (paragraph 0048)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Chakra into Colrain’s teaching, Burgess’ teaching, Xiao’s teaching, Iwayama’s teaching, Zibitsker’s teaching, and Sharon’s teaching, because it would provide for the purpose of reducing the load on the presence server and allow presence information to be made available in more applications (Chakra, paragraph 0048).
As per claim 15, it is an apparatus claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colrain in view of Burgess, Xiao, Iwayama, Zibitsker, and Sharon, as applied to claim 1 and 11, and further in view of US 2006/0270399 to Qi
As per claim 7, Colrain does not explicitly disclose wherein the latency savings is based in part on path performance metrics collected by the network.
Qi further discloses wherein the latency savings is based in part on path performance metrics collected by the network (paragraph 0002: “To reduce performance degradations and/or overload conditions, metrics of the wireless links (e.g., delay) may be measured.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Qi into Colrain’s teaching, Burgess’ teaching, Xiao’s teaching, Iwayama’s teaching, Zibitsker’s teaching, and Sharon’s teaching, because it would provide for the purpose of To reduce performance degradations and/or overload conditions, metrics of the wireless links (e.g., delay) may be measured (Qi, paragraph 0002).
As per claim 17, it is an apparatus claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 7. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colrain in view of Burgess, Xiao, Iwayama, Zibitsker, and Sharon, as applied to claim 1 and 11, and further in view of US 2013/0191511 to Liu et al. (hereafter “Liu”)
As per claim 8, Colrain does not explicitly disclose wherein identifying the set of calls comprises: replacing variable parameters in call paths associated with the set of calls with placeholders.
Smith further discloses wherein identifying the set of calls (paragraph 0014).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Smith into Colrain’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of identifying commands that co-occur more frequently than a threshold occurrence rate, grouping the co-occurring commands (Smith, paragraph 0014).
Liu further discloses replacing variable parameters in call paths associated with the set of calls with placeholders (paragraphs 0121 and 0128)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Liu into Colrain’s teaching, Burgess’ teaching, Xiao’s teaching, Iwayama’s teaching, Zibitsker’s teaching, and Sharon’s teaching, because it would provide for the purpose of transmissing of the request for the segment and the request for pre-fetching the one or more different segments to a proxy cache server (Liu, paragraph 0008).
As per claim 18, it is an apparatus claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 8. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colrain in view of Burgess, Xiao, Iwayama, Zibitsker, and Sharon, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 2013/0124669 to Anderson et al. (hereafter “Anderson”)
As per claim 10, Colrain does not explicitly disclose wherein the user interface is provided via an application performance monitoring (APM) platform.
Anderson further discloses wherein the user interface is provided via an application performance monitoring (APM) platform (FIG. 7; paragraph 0115).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Anderson into Colrain’s teaching, Burgess’ teaching, Xiao’s teaching, Iwayama’s teaching, Zibitsker’s teaching, and Sharon’s teaching, because it would provide for the purpose of monitoring a plurality of different computing systems, each associated with a different account, for example on behalf of a plurality of different entities having accounts, such that monitoring is provided as a service to account holders who are relieved of the burden of hosting a computer system management program (Anderson, paragraph 0022).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to examiner Tuan Dao, whose telephone/fax numbers are (571) 270 3387 and (571) 270 4387, respectively. The examiner can normally be reached on every Monday-Thursday and the second Friday of the bi-week from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272 4215.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature of relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272 2100.
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.
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.
/TUAN C DAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights