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 . 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.
DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office action is in response to application 18239820 filed on 08/30/2023.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
IDS
The information disclosure statement filed on 08/30/2023 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Making the record clear per MPEP 2181
Independent Claims 8 recite, among others recite “a test log collection step”, “a use case association step”, “a monitoring information acquisition step”, “a business impact scope analysis step”.
Dependent Claims 9-11 further narrow the “business impact scope analysis step”.
Dependent Claims 12-13 further recite “a display step”, while
Dependent Claim 14 further recites “an update information acquisition step”.
Yet, MPEP 2181 A mid-¶6 is clear that “If the claim element uses the phrase ‘step for,’ then Section 112, Para. 6 is presumed to apply…. On the other hand, the term ‘step’ alone and the phrase ‘steps of’ tend to show that Section 112, Para. 6 does not govern that limitation."). [emphasis added]. Based on said test, the Examiner reasons that Claims 8-14 do not invoke 35 USC 112(f) / 112 6th ¶.
Claim Interpretation with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) / 112, sixth paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are in
Claim 1 recites: “A business impact scope presentation apparatus comprising:
a test log collection unit configured to collect test recording information indicating an implementation result of a test for monitoring target software in which one or more operational steps indicating constituents of content of a plurality of businesses and a plurality of microservices executing processes through operations of the one or more operational steps are connected via one or more request paths, and collect test case information indicating a relation between the content of each of the businesses and each of the operational steps;
a use case association unit configured to generate use case association information by associating the content of each of the businesses with a request path corresponding to each of the operational steps of the one or more request paths based on the test recording information and the test case information collected by the test log collection unit;
a monitoring information acquisition unit configured to acquire trace data indicating an implementation result of each of the microservices as an implementation result in a production environment for the monitoring target software; and
a business impact scope analysis unit configured to determine whether an abnormality occurs in one request path among the one or more request paths based on the trace data acquired by the monitoring information acquisition unit,
wherein, when it is determined that the abnormality occurs in the one request path, the business impact scope analysis unit specifies the content of the business impacted by the request path in which the abnormality occurs among the content of each of the businesses with reference to the use case association information based on the request path in which the abnormality occurs”.
Claim 3 recites: “The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the business impact scope analysis unit extracts, as analysis target request paths, all request paths in which the objective value is not achieved among the one or more request paths with reference to the use case association information based on the request path in which the objective value is not achieved”
Claim 4 recites: “The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the business impact scope analysis unit determines whether there is the analysis target request path in the trace data, analyzes content of a business related to the microservice connected to the analysis target request path among the content of each of the businesses as content of a business likely to be impacted by the analysis target request path when it is determined that there is no analysis target request path in the trace data, and analyzes the content of the business related to the microservice connected to the analysis target request path among the content of each of the businesses as content of a business impacted by the analysis target request path when it is determined that there is the analysis target request path in the trace data.
Claim 5 recites :The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising: a display unit configured to display constituents of the monitoring target software and adjust displayed content based on an analysis result of the business impact scope analysis unit, wherein the display unit emphasizes and displays content of a business impacted by a request path in which the objective value is not achieved and a request path in which the abnormality occurs among the constituents of the monitoring target software”.
Claim 6 recites: “The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 4, further comprising: a display unit configured to display constituents of the monitoring target software and adjust displayed content based on an analysis result of the business impact scope analysis unit, wherein the display unit emphasizes and displays content of a business likely to be impacted by the analysis target request path and content of a business impacted by the analysis target request path among the constituents of the monitoring target software”
Claim 7 recites: “The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an update information acquisition unit configured to acquire update information including whether the monitoring target software is updated and whether the use case association information is updated, wherein the update information acquisition unit instructs the test log collection unit and the use case association unit to execute an update process associated with the update under conditions that there is an update for the monitoring target software and the update of the use case association information is not completed”. [blded emphasis added]
Examiner reasons that the terms: “test log collection unit”, “use case association unit”, “monitoring information acquisition unit”, “business impact scope analysis unit”, “business impact scope analysis”, “display unit” , “update information acquisition unit” at Claims 1, 3-7 are generic placeholders, followed by their respective functions “to collect”, “to generate”, “to acquire”, “to determine”, via the linking phrase “configured to” , as well as other respective functions “specifies”, “extracts”, “determines”, “display”, “acquire”. Further said generic placeholders are not modified by sufficient structure. Thus, when tested per when tested per MPEP 2181, said claims appear to invoke 112(f).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶6, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
- based on 112 (f) interpretation -
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), ¶1, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, here the
Claim 1 recites: “A business impact scope presentation apparatus comprising:
a test log collection unit configured to collect test recording information indicating an implementation result of a test for monitoring target software in which one or more operational steps indicating constituents of content of a plurality of businesses and a plurality of microservices executing processes through operations of the one or more operational steps are connected via one or more request paths, and collect test case information indicating a relation between the content of each of the businesses and each of the operational steps;
a use case association unit configured to generate use case association information by associating the content of each of the businesses with a request path corresponding to each of the operational steps of the one or more request paths based on the test recording information and the test case information collected by the test log collection unit;
a monitoring information acquisition unit configured to acquire trace data indicating an implementation result of each of the microservices as an implementation result in a production environment for the monitoring target software; and
a business impact scope analysis unit configured to determine whether an abnormality occurs in one request path among the one or more request paths based on the trace data acquired by the monitoring information acquisition unit,
wherein, when it is determined that the abnormality occurs in the one request path, the business impact scope analysis unit specifies the content of the business impacted by the request path in which the abnormality occurs among the content of each of the businesses with reference to the use case association information based on the request path in which the abnormality occurs”.
Claim 3 recites: “The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the business impact scope analysis unit extracts, as analysis target request paths, all request paths in which the objective value is not achieved among the one or more request paths with reference to the use case association information based on the request path in which the objective value is not achieved”
Claim 4 recites: “The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the business impact scope analysis unit determines whether there is the analysis target request path in the trace data, analyzes content of a business related to the microservice connected to the analysis target request path among the content of each of the businesses as content of a business likely to be impacted by the analysis target request path when it is determined that there is no analysis target request path in the trace data, and analyzes the content of the business related to the microservice connected to the analysis target request path among the content of each of the businesses as content of a business impacted by the analysis target request path when it is determined that there is the analysis target request path in the trace data.
Claim 5 recites :The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising: a display unit configured to display constituents of the monitoring target software and adjust displayed content based on an analysis result of the business impact scope analysis unit, wherein the display unit emphasizes and displays content of a business impacted by a request path in which the objective value is not achieved and a request path in which the abnormality occurs among the constituents of the monitoring target software”.
Claim 6 recites: “The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 4, further comprising: a display unit configured to display constituents of the monitoring target software and adjust displayed content based on an analysis result of the business impact scope analysis unit, wherein the display unit emphasizes and displays content of a business likely to be impacted by the analysis target request path and content of a business impacted by the analysis target request path among the constituents of the monitoring target software”
Claim 7 recites: “The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an update information acquisition unit configured to acquire update information including whether the monitoring target software is updated and whether the use case association information is updated, wherein the update information acquisition unit instructs the test log collection unit and the use case association unit to execute an update process associated with the update under conditions that there is an update for the monitoring target software and the update of the use case association information is not completed”. [bolded emphasis added]
Examiner reasons that the terms: “test log collection unit”, “use case association unit”, “monitoring information acquisition unit”, “business impact scope analysis unit”, “business impact scope analysis”, “display unit” , “update information acquisition unit” at Claims 1, 3-7 are generic placeholders, followed by their respective functions “to collect”, “to generate”, “to acquire”, “to determine”, via the linking phrase “configured to” , as well as other respective functions “extracts”, “determines”, “display”, “acquire”. Further said generic placeholders are not modified by sufficient structure. Thus, when tested per when tested per MPEP 2181, said claims appear to invoke 112(f).
Yet, the Original Specification fails to provide clear, adequate structure to each generic placeholder: “test log collection unit”, “use case association unit”, “monitoring information acquisition unit”, “business impact scope analysis unit”, “business impact scope analysis”, “display unit” , “update information acquisition unit” to perform each of the respective functions of
“to collect”, “to generate”, “to acquire”, “to determine”, “specifies”, “extracts”, “determines”, “display”, “acquire”. Also, the written description fails to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the Original Specification does not appear to clearly link each of respective functions “to collect”, “to generate”, “to acquire”, “to determine”, “specifies”, “extracts”, “determines”, “display”, “acquire” to specified structure for each of the generic placeholders “test log collection unit”, “use case association unit”, “monitoring information acquisition unit”, “business impact scope analysis unit”, “business impact scope analysis”, “display unit” , “update information acquisition unit”, such as by an algorithm.
Original Specification thus does not appear to demonstrate that the Applicant has made an invention that achieves each and all of respective claimed functions by each of the respective structure because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one or ordinary skills in the art can reasonably conclude that inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-7 are thus rejected based on the issues raised above. Claim 2, along with dependent Claims 3-7 is also rejected as dependent upon rejected parent independent Claim 1.
Examiner recommends, as example only, that Applicant amend, Claims 1, 3-7 to no longer invoke 35 USC 112 (f) such as amending the above placeholders as structure, as follows:
Claim 1 recites: A business impact scope presentation apparatus comprising:
a test log collection unit executed by a hardware processor collect test recording information indicating an implementation result of a test for monitoring target software in which one or more operational steps indicating constituents of content of a plurality of businesses and a plurality of microservices executing processes through operations of the one or more operational steps are connected via one or more request paths, and collect test case information indicating a relation between the content of each of the businesses and each of the operational steps;
a use case association unit executed by the hardware processor generate use case association information by associating the content of each of the businesses with a request path corresponding to each of the operational steps of the one or more request paths based on the test recording information and the test case information collected by the test log collection unit;
a monitoring information acquisition unit executed by the hardware processor acquire trace data indicating an implementation result of each of the microservices as an implementation result in a production environment for the monitoring target software; and
a business impact scope analysis unit executed by the hardware processor determine whether an abnormality occurs in one request path among the one or more request paths based on the trace data acquired by the monitoring information acquisition unit,
wherein, when it is determined that the abnormality occurs in the one request path, the business impact scope analysis unit executed by the hardware processor specifies the content of the business impacted by the request path in which the abnormality occurs among the content of each of the businesses with reference to the use case association information based on the request path in which the abnormality occurs.
Claim 3 recites: The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the business impact scope analysis unit is further executed by the hardware processor to extract , as analysis target request paths, all request paths in which the objective value is not achieved among the one or more request paths with reference to the use case association information based on the request path in which the objective value is not achieved
Claim 4 recites: The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the business impact scope analysis unit is further executed by the hardware processor to determine whether there is the analysis target request path in the trace data, and to analyze of a business related to the microservice connected to the analysis target request path among the content of each of the businesses as content of a business likely to be impacted by the analysis target request path when it is determined that there is no analysis target request path in the trace data, and to analyze of the business related to the microservice connected to the analysis target request path among the content of each of the businesses as content of a business impacted by the analysis target request path when it is determined that there is the analysis target request path in the trace data.
Claim 5 recites :The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising: a display unit executed by the hardware processor to display constituents of the monitoring target software and adjust displayed content based on an analysis result of the business impact scope analysis unit, wherein the display unit emphasizes and displays content of a business impacted by a request path in which the objective value is not achieved and a request path in which the abnormality occurs among the constituents of the monitoring target software”.
Claim 6 recites: “The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 4, further comprising: a display unit executed by the hardware processor to display constituents of the monitoring target software and adjust displayed content based on an analysis result of the business impact scope analysis unit, wherein the display unit is executed by the hardware processor to emphasize and display of a business likely to be impacted by the analysis target request path and content of a business impacted by the analysis target request path among the constituents of the monitoring target software”
Claim 7 recites: “The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an update information acquisition unit executed by the hardware processor update information including whether the monitoring target software is updated and whether the use case association information is updated, wherein the update information acquisition unit is executed by the hardware processor to instruct the test log collection unit and the use case association unit to execute an update process associated with the update under conditions that there is an update for the monitoring target software and the update of the use case association information is not completed”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
- based on 112 (f) interpretation -
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), ¶2 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically
Claim 1 recites: “A business impact scope presentation apparatus comprising:
a test log collection unit configured to collect test recording information indicating an implementation result of a test for monitoring target software in which one or more operational steps indicating constituents of content of a plurality of businesses and a plurality of microservices executing processes through operations of the one or more operational steps are connected via one or more request paths, and collect test case information indicating a relation between the content of each of the businesses and each of the operational steps;
a use case association unit configured to generate use case association information by associating the content of each of the businesses with a request path corresponding to each of the operational steps of the one or more request paths based on the test recording information and the test case information collected by the test log collection unit;
a monitoring information acquisition unit configured to acquire trace data indicating an implementation result of each of the microservices as an implementation result in a production environment for the monitoring target software; and
a business impact scope analysis unit configured to determine whether an abnormality occurs in one request path among the one or more request paths based on the trace data acquired by the monitoring information acquisition unit,
wherein, when it is determined that the abnormality occurs in the one request path, the business impact scope analysis unit specifies the content of the business impacted by the request path in which the abnormality occurs among the content of each of the businesses with reference to the use case association information based on the request path in which the abnormality occurs”.
Claim 3 recites: “The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the business impact scope analysis unit extracts, as analysis target request paths, all request paths in which the objective value is not achieved among the one or more request paths with reference to the use case association information based on the request path in which the objective value is not achieved”
Claim 4 recites: “The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the business impact scope analysis unit determines whether there is the analysis target request path in the trace data, analyzes content of a business related to the microservice connected to the analysis target request path among the content of each of the businesses as content of a business likely to be impacted by the analysis target request path when it is determined that there is no analysis target request path in the trace data, and analyzes the content of the business related to the microservice connected to the analysis target request path among the content of each of the businesses as content of a business impacted by the analysis target request path when it is determined that there is the analysis target request path in the trace data.
Claim 5 recites :The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising: a display unit configured to display constituents of the monitoring target software and adjust displayed content based on an analysis result of the business impact scope analysis unit, wherein the display unit emphasizes and displays content of a business impacted by a request path in which the objective value is not achieved and a request path in which the abnormality occurs among the constituents of the monitoring target software”.
Claim 6 recites: “The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 4, further comprising: a display unit configured to display constituents of the monitoring target software and adjust displayed content based on an analysis result of the business impact scope analysis unit, wherein the display unit emphasizes and displays content of a business likely to be impacted by the analysis target request path and content of a business impacted by the analysis target request path among the constituents of the monitoring target software”
Claim 7 recites: “The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an update information acquisition unit configured to acquire update information including whether the monitoring target software is updated and whether the use case association information is updated, wherein the update information acquisition unit instructs the test log collection unit and the use case association unit to execute an update process associated with the update under conditions that there is an update for the monitoring target software and the update of the use case association information is not completed”. [bolded emphasis added]
Examiner reasons that the terms: “test log collection unit”, “use case association unit”, “monitoring information acquisition unit”, “business impact scope analysis unit”, “business impact scope analysis”, “display unit” , “update information acquisition unit” at Claims 1, 3-7 are generic placeholders, followed by their respective functions “to collect”, “to generate”, “to acquire”, “to determine”, via the linking phrase “configured to” , as well as other respective functions “specifies”, “extracts”, “determines”, “display”, “acquire”. Further said generic placeholders are not modified by sufficient structure. Thus, when tested per when tested per MPEP 2181, said claims appear to invoke 112(f).
Yet, the Original Specification fails to provide clear, adequate structure to each generic placeholder: “test log collection unit”, “use case association unit”, “monitoring information acquisition unit”, “business impact scope analysis unit”, “business impact scope analysis”, “display unit” , “update information acquisition unit” to perform each of the respective functions of
“to collect”, “to generate”, “to acquire”, “to determine”, “specifies”, “extracts”, “determines”, “display”, “acquire”. Also, the written description fails to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the Original Specification does not appear to clearly link each of respective functions “to collect”, “to generate”, “to acquire”, “to determine”, specifies”, “extracts”, “determines”, “display”, “acquire” to specified structure for each of the generic placeholders “test log collection unit”, “use case association unit”, “monitoring information acquisition unit”, “business impact scope analysis unit”, “business impact scope analysis”, “display unit” , “update information acquisition unit”, such as by an algorithm.
Claims 1, 3-7 are thus rendered vague and indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). Claim 2, along with dependent Claims 3-7 is also rejected as dependent upon rejected parent independent Claim 1.
Examiner recommends, as example only, that Applicant amend, Claims 1, 3-7 to no longer invoke 35 USC 112 (f) such as amending the above placeholders as structure, as follows:
Claim 1 recites: A business impact scope presentation apparatus comprising:
a test log collection unit executed by a hardware processor collect test recording information indicating an implementation result of a test for monitoring target software in which one or more operational steps indicating constituents of content of a plurality of businesses and a plurality of microservices executing processes through operations of the one or more operational steps are connected via one or more request paths, and collect test case information indicating a relation between the content of each of the businesses and each of the operational steps;
a use case association unit executed by the hardware processor generate use case association information by associating the content of each of the businesses with a request path corresponding to each of the operational steps of the one or more request paths based on the test recording information and the test case information collected by the test log collection unit;
a monitoring information acquisition unit executed by the hardware processor acquire trace data indicating an implementation result of each of the microservices as an implementation result in a production environment for the monitoring target software; and
a business impact scope analysis unit executed by the hardware processor determine whether an abnormality occurs in one request path among the one or more request paths based on the trace data acquired by the monitoring information acquisition unit,
wherein, when it is determined that the abnormality occurs in the one request path, the business impact scope analysis unit executed by the hardware processor specifies the content of the business impacted by the request path in which the abnormality occurs among the content of each of the businesses with reference to the use case association information based on the request path in which the abnormality occurs.
Claim 3 recites: The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the business impact scope analysis unit is further executed by the hardware processor to extract , as analysis target request paths, all request paths in which the objective value is not achieved among the one or more request paths with reference to the use case association information based on the request path in which the objective value is not achieved
Claim 4 recites: The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the business impact scope analysis unit is further executed by the hardware processor to determine whether there is the analysis target request path in the trace data, and to analyze of a business related to the microservice connected to the analysis target request path among the content of each of the businesses as content of a business likely to be impacted by the analysis target request path when it is determined that there is no analysis target request path in the trace data, and to analyze of the business related to the microservice connected to the analysis target request path among the content of each of the businesses as content of a business impacted by the analysis target request path when it is determined that there is the analysis target request path in the trace data.
Claim 5 recites :The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising: a display unit executed by the hardware processor to display constituents of the monitoring target software and adjust displayed content based on an analysis result of the business impact scope analysis unit, wherein the display unit emphasizes and displays content of a business impacted by a request path in which the objective value is not achieved and a request path in which the abnormality occurs among the constituents of the monitoring target software”.
Claim 6 recites: “The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 4, further comprising: a display unit executed by the hardware processor to display constituents of the monitoring target software and adjust displayed content based on an analysis result of the business impact scope analysis unit, wherein the display unit is executed by the hardware processor to emphasize and display of a business likely to be impacted by the analysis target request path and content of a business impacted by the analysis target request path among the constituents of the monitoring target software”
Claim 7 recites: “The business impact scope presentation apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an update information acquisition unit executed by the hardware processor update information including whether the monitoring target software is updated and whether the use case association information is updated, wherein the update information acquisition unit is executed by the hardware processor to instruct the test log collection unit and the use case association unit to execute an update process associated with the update under conditions that there is an update for the monitoring target software and the update of the use case association information is not completed”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
- aside from 112 (f) interpretation -
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), ¶2 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically,
Claims 1,8 are independent and each recite, among others:
- “…collect test recording information indicating an implementation result of a test for monitoring target software in which one or more operational steps indicating constituents of content of a plurality of businesses and a plurality of microservices executing processes through operations of the one or more operational steps are connected via one or more request paths, and collect test case information indicating a relation between the content of each of the businesses and each of the operational steps”;
“…generate use case association information by associating the content of each of the businesses with a request path corresponding to each of the operational steps of the one or more request paths based on the test recording information and the test case information collected by the test log collection unit”;
- “wherein, when it is determined that the abnormality occurs in the one request path, the business impact scope analysis unit specifies the content of the business impacted by the request path in which the abnormality occurs among the content of each of the businesses with reference to the use case association information based on the request path in which the abnormality occurs”.
Claims 1,8 are rendered vague and indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for subsequently recited “the operational steps”; [plural] when said claims would only cover “one” step [singular] as previously introduced by the broad expression “one or more operational steps”
Claims 1,8 are rendered vague and indefinite because, while there is antecedent basis for “content of a plurality of businesses “ / “content of each of the businesses”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the content of the business impacted by the request path”
Claims 2,9 are similarly rendered vague and indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for subsequently recited “the operational steps”; [plural] when said claims would only cover “one” step [singular] as previously introduced by the broad expression “one or more operational steps” at parent independent Claims 1,8.
Claims 1,8 are recommended to be amended to each recite, among others, as example only
- …collect test recording information indicating an implementation result of a test for monitoring target software in which one or more operational steps indicating constituents of content of a plurality of businesses and a plurality of microservices executing processes through operations of the one or more operational steps are connected via one or more request paths, and collect test case information indicating a relation between the content of each of the businesses and each of the one or more operational steps;
- …generate use case association information by associating the content of each of the businesses with a request path corresponding to each of the one or more operational steps of the one or more request paths based on the test recording information and the test case information collected by the test log collection unit;
- wherein, when it is determined that the abnormality occurs in the one request path, the business impact scope analysis unit specifies particular content of a business impacted by the request path in which the abnormality occurs among the content of each of the businesses with reference to the use case association information based on the request path in which the abnormality occurs.
Claims 2,9 are recommended to be amended to each recite, among others, as example only
wherein the trace data includes, as a processing time required in a process for each request by each of the one or more operational steps… etc.
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are rejected based on rejected parent independent Claims 1,8.
Claims 3-6 and 10-13 are rejected based on rejected parent independent Claims 2,9.
Clarifications and/or corrections are required.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea, here abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) describe or set forth the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activities, specifically the fundamental economic practices, such as risk mitigation of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)IIA(i). Such risk is set forth here with respect to an “abnormality” benchmarked by an “impact scope presentation” as summarized by the preamble of independent Claims 1,8, with respect to “one or more operational steps indicating constituents of content of a plurality of businesses and a plurality of microservices” and further detailed in the body of Claims 1-14 as corresponding to the commercial interactions of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II(B) to specify “the content of the business impacted by the request path in which the abnormality occurs among the content of each of the businesses with reference to the use case association information based on the request path in which the abnormality occurs” (independent Claims 1,8), “determines that the abnormality occurs when the processing time of one request exceeds the threshold, and analyzes a request path of the request in which the processing time exceeds the threshold as a request path which is a request path in which the abnormality occurs and in which an objective value is not achieved” (dependent Claims 2, 9), “extracts, as analysis target request paths, all request paths in which the objective value is not achieved among the one or more request paths with reference to the use case association information based on the request path in which the objective value is not achieved” (dependent Claims 3, 10) “analyzes content of a business related to the microservice connected to the analysis target request path among the content of each of the businesses as content of a business likely to be impacted by the analysis target” (dependent Claims 4,11). Examiner also points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II A ¶2 to stress that the term fundamental is not used in the sense of necessarily being old or well-known. Indeed, as stressed by MPEP 2106.04 I mid-¶3, narrow forms of abstract idea that have limited applications were still held ineligible. It then follows that here, limiting or narrowing the abstract analysis of “abnormality or risk, to an environment characterized by “trace data indicating an implementation result of each of the microservices as an implementation result in a production environment for the monitoring target software” (independent Claims 1,8) and including “a processing time of the each request in each of the request paths” “as a processing time required in a process for each request by each of the operational steps and each of the microservices” (dependent Claims 2,9), would similarly not necessarily preclude the claims from reciting, describing or setting forth the abstract fundamental economic practices, business relations, commercial interactions, and management of such interactions, as enumerated by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II.
As one example, here, the determination of business “impact”, such as when “abnormality occurs” “when the processing time of one request exceeds the threshold”, or when the “objective value is not achieved” is not meaningfully different than the legal findings articulated by the Federal Circuit in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015), which, as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II C, was found to recite the abstract exception by considering stored user-selected pre-set limits [akin here to threshold], such that when one of the limits is reached, a notifications communicated [akin here to displayed content] to user via a device. In a similar vein, the USPTO’s 35 U.S.C. 101 Examination Guidance and Training Materials cites at Row # 21, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co. , where the Federal Circuit ruled that the identifying and characterizing errant electronic files as reciting to the abstract exception and thus ineligible, and similarly cites at Row #55 Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp. where the Federal Circuit similarly found the screening of data files for unwanted content and routing based on specific rules as reciting to the abstract exception. It would then follow that here, the analogues monitoring or acquisition of trace data and determin[ation] whether an abnormality occurs in one request path among the one or more request paths based on the trace data acquired by the monitoring information acquisition unit, wherein, when it is determined t