DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a Non-Final Office Action Correspondence in response to U.S. Application No. 18/242647 filed on September 06, 2023.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statement filed on September 06, 2023 was reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 1, specifically claim 1 recites "and providing, by the device, the transformed results to a datastore” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using pen and paper to write the results into a table. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can use a pen and paper to write the results. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 1 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example “receiving, by a device, a model defining a configuration of synthetic monitoring operations to be performed by a synthetic agent” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity such as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
For example, “converting, by the device, the model into code to be utilized by the synthetic agent to perform the synthetic monitoring operations” additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity such as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
For example, “transforming, by the device, results from a performance of the synthetic monitoring operations into transformed results in a common data format” additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity such as MPEP 2106. 05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “receiving, by a device, a model defining a configuration of synthetic monitoring operations to be performed by a synthetic agent”, “converting, by the device, the model into code to be utilized by the synthetic agent to perform the synthetic monitoring operations”, “transforming, by the device, results from a performance of the synthetic monitoring operations into transformed results in a common data format”.
For example, “receiving, by a device, a model defining a configuration of synthetic monitoring operations to be performed by a synthetic agent”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “converting, by the device, the model into code to be utilized by the synthetic agent to perform the synthetic monitoring operations” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory, (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “transforming, by the device, results from a performance of the synthetic monitoring operations into transformed results in a common data format” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 2, specifically claim 2 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 2 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein the synthetic agent is a serverless service” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the synthetic agent is a serverless service”.
For example, “wherein the synthetic agent is a serverless service”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 3, specifically claim 3 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 3 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein results from the performance of the synthetic monitoring operations are performance metric data collected from an execution of a particular flow by the synthetic agent in testing a service and wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines parameters of collection logic to be incorporated into the code for collecting the performance metric data from the service” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein results from the performance of the synthetic monitoring operations are performance metric data collected from an execution of a particular flow by the synthetic agent in testing a service and wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines parameters of collection logic to be incorporated into the code for collecting the performance metric data from the service”.
For example, “wherein results from the performance of the synthetic monitoring operations are performance metric data collected from an execution of a particular flow by the synthetic agent in testing a service and wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines parameters of collection logic to be incorporated into the code for collecting the performance metric data from the service”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 4, specifically claim 4 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 4 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations includes an indication of a programming language of the code into which the model is to be converted by the synthetic agent” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations includes an indication of a programming language of the code into which the model is to be converted by the synthetic agent”.
For example, “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations includes an indication of a programming language of the code into which the model is to be converted by the synthetic agent”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 5, specifically claim 5 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 5 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations includes an indication of a programming language of the code into which the model is to be converted by the synthetic agent” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations includes an indication of a programming language of the code into which the model is to be converted by the synthetic agent”.
For example, “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations includes an indication of a programming language of the code into which the model is to be converted by the synthetic agent”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 6, specifically claim 6 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 6 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations identifies a private repository source where the job configuration is stored for retrieval by the synthetic agent” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations identifies a private repository source where the job configuration is stored for retrieval by the synthetic agent”.
For example, “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations identifies a private repository source where the job configuration is stored for retrieval by the synthetic agent”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 7, specifically claim 7 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 7 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines a runtime configuration for the synthetic monitoring operations” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines a runtime configuration for the synthetic monitoring operations”.
For example, “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines a runtime configuration for the synthetic monitoring operations”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 8, specifically claim 8 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 8 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines a credential configuration identifying credentials for the synthetic monitoring operations as an encrypted value or as a location of a private secret vault where a credential is stored for retrieval by the synthetic agent” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines a credential configuration identifying credentials for the synthetic monitoring operations as an encrypted value or as a location of a private secret vault where a credential is stored for retrieval by the synthetic agent”.
For example, “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines a credential configuration identifying credentials for the synthetic monitoring operations as an encrypted value or as a location of a private secret vault where a credential is stored for retrieval by the synthetic agent”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 9, specifically claim 9 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 9 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “maintaining a library of templates of pre-recorded synthetic monitoring operations in a plurality of scripting languages” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “maintaining a library of templates of pre-recorded synthetic monitoring operations in a plurality of scripting languages”.
For example, “maintaining a library of templates of pre-recorded synthetic monitoring operations in a plurality of scripting languages”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 10, specifically claim 10 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 10 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the model defining the configuration of synthetic monitoring operations includes a selection or customization of a template from the library of templates to be used by the synthetic agent in converting the model into the code to be utilized by the synthetic agent to perform the synthetic monitoring operations” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the model defining the configuration of synthetic monitoring operations includes a selection or customization of a template from the library of templates to be used by the synthetic agent in converting the model into the code to be utilized by the synthetic agent to perform the synthetic monitoring operations”.
For example, “wherein the model defining the configuration of synthetic monitoring operations includes a selection or customization of a template from the library of templates to be used by the synthetic agent in converting the model into the code to be utilized by the synthetic agent to perform the synthetic monitoring operations”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 11, specifically claim 11 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 11 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the common data format is an OpenTelemetry (OTEL) data format” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the common data format is an OpenTelemetry (OTEL) data format”.
For example, “wherein the common data format is an OpenTelemetry (OTEL) data format”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 12, specifically claim 12 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 12 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “discontinuing result collection from the performance of the synthetic monitoring operations upon completion of the synthetic monitoring operations as specified in the model” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “discontinuing result collection from the performance of the synthetic monitoring operations upon completion of the synthetic monitoring operations as specified in the model”.
For example, “discontinuing result collection from the performance of the synthetic monitoring operations upon completion of the synthetic monitoring operations as specified in the model”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 13, specifically claim 13 recites "providing the results from the synthetic agent in the common data format to a datastore” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using pen and paper to write the results into a table. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can use a pen and paper to write the results. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 13 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor on a computer is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity.
For example “receiving a model defining a configuration of synthetic monitoring operations to be performed by a synthetic agent” is seen as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity such as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
For example, “converting the model into code to be utilized by the synthetic agent to perform the synthetic monitoring operations” additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity such as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
For example, “transforming results from performance of the synthetic monitoring operations into a common data format” additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity such as MPEP 2106. 05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “receiving a model defining a configuration of synthetic monitoring operations to be performed by a synthetic agent”, “converting the model into code to be utilized by the synthetic agent to perform the synthetic monitoring operations”, “transforming results from performance of the synthetic monitoring operations into a common data format”.
For example, “receiving a model defining a configuration of synthetic monitoring operations to be performed by a synthetic agent”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “converting the model into code to be utilized by the synthetic agent to perform the synthetic monitoring operations” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory, (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “transforming results from performance of the synthetic monitoring operations into a common data format” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 14, specifically claim 14 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 14 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations includes an indication of a programming language of the code into which the model is to be converted by the synthetic agent” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations includes an indication of a programming language of the code into which the model is to be converted by the synthetic agent”.
For example, “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations includes an indication of a programming language of the code into which the model is to be converted by the synthetic agent”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 15, specifically claim 15 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 15 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines a job configuration defining a user journey as a script or a code snippet” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines a job configuration defining a user journey as a script or a code snippet”.
For example, “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines a job configuration defining a user journey as a script or a code snippet”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 16, specifically claim 16 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 16 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines a runtime configuration for the synthetic monitoring operations including an indication of the common data format and the datastore” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines a runtime configuration for the synthetic monitoring operations including an indication of the common data format and the datastore”.
For example, “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines a runtime configuration for the synthetic monitoring operations including an indication of the common data format and the datastore”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 17, specifically claim 17 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 17 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines a credential configuration identifying credentials for the synthetic monitoring operations as an encrypted value or as a location of a private secret vault where a credential is stored for retrieval by the synthetic agent” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines a credential configuration identifying credentials for the synthetic monitoring operations as an encrypted value or as a location of a private secret vault where a credential is stored for retrieval by the synthetic agent”.
For example, “wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines a credential configuration identifying credentials for the synthetic monitoring operations as an encrypted value or as a location of a private secret vault where a credential is stored for retrieval by the synthetic agent”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 18, specifically claim 18 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 18 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the model defining the configuration of synthetic monitoring operations includes a selection or customization of a template from the library of templates to be used by the synthetic agent in converting the model into the code to be utilized by the synthetic agent to perform the synthetic monitoring operations” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the model defining the configuration of synthetic monitoring operations includes a selection or customization of a template from the library of templates to be used by the synthetic agent in converting the model into the code to be utilized by the synthetic agent to perform the synthetic monitoring operations”.
For example, “wherein the model defining the configuration of synthetic monitoring operations includes a selection or customization of a template from the library of templates to be used by the synthetic agent in converting the model into the code to be utilized by the synthetic agent to perform the synthetic monitoring operations”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 19, specifically claim 19 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 19 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein results from the performance of the synthetic monitoring operations are performance metric data collected from an execution of a particular flow by the synthetic agent in testing a service and wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines parameters of collection logic to be incorporated into the code for collecting the performance metric data from the service” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein results from the performance of the synthetic monitoring operations are performance metric data collected from an execution of a particular flow by the synthetic agent in testing a service and wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines parameters of collection logic to be incorporated into the code for collecting the performance metric data from the service”.
For example, “wherein results from the performance of the synthetic monitoring operations are performance metric data collected from an execution of a particular flow by the synthetic agent in testing a service and wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines parameters of collection logic to be incorporated into the code for collecting the performance metric data from the service”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sah et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0412491 (herein as ‘Sah’).
As to claim 1, Sah teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a device, a model defining a configuration of synthetic monitoring operations to be performed by a synthetic agent (Par. 0576 Sah)
converting, by the device, the model into code to be utilized by the synthetic agent to perform the synthetic monitoring operations (Par. 0576-0578 Sah)
transforming, by the device, results from a performance of the synthetic monitoring operations into transformed results in a common data format (Par. 0576-0578 Sah)
and providing, by the device, the transformed results to a datastore (Par. 0587-0588 Sah).
As to claim 2, Sah teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Sah teaches wherein the synthetic agent is a serverless service (Par. 0143 Sah discloses a web-based service).
As to claim 3, Sah teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Sah teaches wherein results from the performance of the synthetic monitoring operations are performance metric data collected from an execution of a particular flow by the synthetic agent in testing a service and wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines parameters of collection logic to be incorporated into the code for collecting the performance metric data from the service (Par. 0062, 0063, 0525 Sah).
As to claim 4, Sah teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Sah teaches wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations includes an indication of a programming language of the code into which the model is to be converted by the synthetic agent (Par. 0066, 0136, 0209, 0665 Sah).
As to claim 5, Sah teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Sah teaches wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines a job configuration defining a user journey as a script or a code snippet (Par. 0143 and 0302 Sah).
As to claim 6, Sah teaches each and every limitation of claim 5.
In addition Sah teaches wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations identifies a private repository source where the job configuration is stored for retrieval by the synthetic agent (Par. 0524 Sah).
As to claim 7, Sah teaches each and every limitation of claim 5.
In addition Sah teaches wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines a runtime configuration for the synthetic monitoring operations (Par. 0105, 0112, 0113 Sah).
As to claim 8, Sah teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Sah teaches wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines a credential configuration identifying credentials for the synthetic monitoring operations as an encrypted value or as a location of a private secret vault where a credential is stored for retrieval by the synthetic agent (Par. 0561 and 0566 Sah).
As to claim 9, Sah teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Sah teaches further comprising: maintaining a library of templates of pre-recorded synthetic monitoring operations in a plurality of scripting languages (Par. 0665 Sah).
As to claim 10, Sah teaches each and every limitation of claim 9.
In addition Sah teaches wherein the model defining the configuration of synthetic monitoring operations includes a selection or customization of a template from the library of templates to be used by the synthetic agent in converting the model into the code to be utilized by the synthetic agent to perform the synthetic monitoring operations (Par. 0569, 0585 Sah).
As to claim 12, Sah teaches each and every limitation of claim 11.
In addition Sah teaches further comprising: discontinuing result collection from the performance of the synthetic monitoring operations upon completion of the synthetic monitoring operations as specified in the model (Par. 0257 Sah).
As to claim 13 Sah teaches a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor on a computer, cause the computer to perform a method comprising (Par. 0065 Sah discloses a processor);
receiving a model defining a configuration of synthetic monitoring operations to be performed by a synthetic agent (Par. 0576 Sah);
converting the model into code to be utilized by the synthetic agent to perform the synthetic monitoring operations (Par. 0576-0578 Sah);
transforming results from performance of the synthetic monitoring operations into a common data format (Par. 0576-0578 Sah);
and providing the results from the synthetic agent in the common data format to a datastore (Par. 0587-0588 Sah).
As to claim 14, Sah teaches each and every limitation of claim 13.
In addition Sah teaches wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations includes an indication of a programming language of the code into which the model is to be converted by the synthetic agent (Par. 0066, 0136, 0209, 0665 Sah).
As to claim 15, Sah teaches each and every limitation of claim 13.
In addition Sah teaches wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines a job configuration defining a user journey as a script or a code snippet (Par. 0143 and 0302 Sah).
As to claim 16, Sah teaches each and every limitation of claim 13.
In addition Sah teaches wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines a runtime configuration for the synthetic monitoring operations including an indication of the common data format and the datastore (Par. 0105, 0112, 0113 Sah).
As to claim 17, Sah teaches each and every limitation of claim 13.
In addition Sah teaches wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines a credential configuration identifying credentials for the synthetic monitoring operations as an encrypted value or as a location of a private secret vault where a credential is stored for retrieval by the synthetic agent (Par. 0561 and 0566 Sah).
As to claim 18, Sah teaches each and every limitation of claim 13.
In addition Sah teaches wherein the model defining the configuration of synthetic monitoring operations includes a selection or customization of a template, from a library of templates of pre-recorded synthetic monitoring operations in a plurality of scripting languages, to be utilized by the synthetic agent in converting the model into the code to perform the synthetic monitoring operations (Par. 0569, 0585 Sah).
As to claim 19, Sah teaches each and every limitation of claim 13.
In addition Sah teaches wherein results from the performance of the synthetic monitoring operations are performance metric data collected from an execution of a particular flow by the synthetic agent in testing a service and wherein the model defining the synthetic monitoring operations defines parameters of collection logic to be incorporated into the code for collecting the performance metric data from the service (Par. 0062, 0063, 0525 Sah).
As to claim 20, Sah teaches an apparatus, comprising:
one or more network interfaces to communicate with a network (Par. 0158 Sah).
a processor coupled to the one or more network interfaces and configured to execute one or more processes (Par. 0065 Sah);
and a memory configured to store a process that is executable by the processor, the process, when executed, configured to (Par. 0118 Sah);
receive a model defining a configuration of synthetic monitoring operations to be performed by a synthetic agent (Par. 0576 Sah);
convert the model into code to be utilized by the synthetic agent to perform the synthetic monitoring operations (Par. 0576-0578 Sah);
transform results from a performance of the synthetic monitoring operations into transformed results in a common data format (Par. 0576-0578 Sah);
and provide the transformed results to a datastore (Par. 0587-0588 Sah).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
11. 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.
12. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sah et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0412491 (herein as ‘Sah’) and further in view of Bokhan-Dilawari et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0315418 (herein as ‘Bokhan’).
As to claim 11, Sah teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
Sah does not teach but Bokhan teaches wherein the common data format is an Open Telemetry (OTEL) data format (Par. 0094 Bokhan discloses the format is open telemetry).
Sah and Bokhan are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, agent processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the agent processing of Sah to include the identifying web services of Bokhan, to allow for access data in improved manageability (Par. 0003-0004 and 0050 Bokhan).
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMAINE A MINCEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5010. The examiner can normally be reached 8am EST until 5pm 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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/JERMAINE A MINCEY/ August 22, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights