Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recites a limitation(s) of evaluating the snapshot data according to detection algorithms to identify patterns in configurations in the solution environment based on historized snapshot data stored over time; classifying a first identified pattern of the patterns associated with a first configuration of the configurations in the solution environment as an anomaly configuration type, wherein the classifying is based on using tracked data for historically classified patterns associated with the solution environment, and identifying, using snapshot data associated with the first configuration, a first landscape and a second landscape of the set of landscapes of the solution environment associated with an integration classified as an anomaly, which is a mental process.
The claim(s) recites a series of steps and, therefore, is/are a process. The limitation(s), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “medium,” “processors,” “storage device,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “evaluating” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses a user evaluating the snapshot data according to detection algorithms to identify patterns in configurations in the solution environment based on historized snapshot data stored over time, “classifying” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses the user classifying a first identified pattern of the patterns associated with a first configuration of the configurations in the solution environment as an anomaly configuration type, wherein the classifying is based on using tracked data for historically classified patterns associated with the solution environment, and “identifying” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses the user identifying, using snapshot data associated with the first configuration, a first landscape and a second landscape of the set of landscapes of the solution environment associated with an integration classified as an anomaly. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, a step of “reading snapshot data representing configurations defined for customers of a solution environment, wherein the solution environment comprises a set of landscapes, wherein the snapshot data includes data for integrations between tenants and/or services of a set of customers” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering snapshot data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, the claim(s) recites additional elements of “medium,” “processors,” “storage device,” which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic “processor” performing a generic computer function of “reading snapshot data representing configurations defined for customers of a solution environment, wherein the solution environment comprises a set of landscapes, wherein the snapshot data includes data for integrations between tenants and/or services of a set of customers,” “generating an execution plan to remedy the anomaly based on evaluating data of the first landscape and the second landscape,” or “executing a remediation procedure at the first landscape and the second landscape of the solution environment to modify the first configuration to eliminate the anomaly according to the generated execution plan") such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim(s) does not provide any indication that the recited system/medium is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the step of “reading snapshot data representing configurations defined for customers of a solution environment, wherein the solution environment comprises a set of landscapes, wherein the snapshot data includes data for integrations between tenants and/or services of a set of customers” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. In addition, the additional elements of using “medium,” “processors,” “storage device” to perform the claimed invention amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Response to Remarks
Amended claim 1 recites “generating an execution plan to remedy the anomaly based on evaluating data of the first landscape and the second landscape; and executing a remediation procedure at the first landscape and the second landscape of the solution environment to modify the first configuration to eliminate the anomaly according to the generated execution plan.” However, the claim recites only the idea of a solution. That is, to modify the anomalous configuration based on #1 and #2 landscapes. The claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, and thus are mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Applicant's Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 101, the Remarks state, “Such remediation action that relies on a generated execution plan, targeted at the respective landscape (where the anomaly exists), improves the functioning of the solution environment to reliably provide services to customers.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed executing a remediation procedure is generic. The solution of modifying the configuration is recited at a high level.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE LIN whose telephone number is (571)431-0706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bryce Bonzo can be reached on (571) 272-3655. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHERINE LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights