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 11 is rejected. Claims 1-10, 12-15 are allowed. Claim Interpretation 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, sixth 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 limitation(s) is/are: “a processing resource” to perform various functions in claim 13. 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, sixth paragraph, 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 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second set of model weights" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) 1, 7 and 13 recite(s) : obtain a current operating parameter… analyze the current operating parameter based on a first model and a second model… ascertain occurrence of an anomaly … training a global model… updating a set of global weights… transmitting the updated set of global weights… obtain a set of environment-related parameters… obtain a set of environment-agnostic parameters… train a first model… train a second model… transmit the set of model weights… receive a first set of global weights… update the second model. ascertain an occurrence of an anomaly… Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes. Claim 1 is a machine. Claim 13 is a process. Claim 13 is an article of manufacture. Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s) The ‘ analyze ' limitation in #1 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, " analyzing " in the context of the claim encompasses a person observing/analyzing an operating condition of a device based on operation history of the device and obtained parameter information of similar devices . The ‘ascertain ' limitation in # 3 , #14 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, " ascertain " in the context of the claim encompasses a person determining an occurrence of an error based on the result of the analyzing step above . The ‘training ' limitation in # 4, #9, #10 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, " training " in the context of the claim encompasses a person refining rules/conditions for an anomaly using the obtained parameters . The ‘updating ' limitation in # 5, #13 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, " updating " in the context of the claim encompasses a person refining rules/conditions /coefficients for an anomaly using the obtained parameters . Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The ' obtain ' and ‘receive’ limitation in #1 , #7, #8, #12 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, " obtain " and “receive” in the context of the claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The ' transmitting ' limitation in # 6, #11 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, " transmitting " in the context of the claim encompasses merely selecting data to be manipulated (e.g. sending ). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, one or more of the claims recite the following additional elements: A system (claim 1) a processor / a processing resource (claims 1 and 13 a machine- readable storage medium / a non-transitory computer-readable medium ( c laims 1 and 13) These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 2-4 merely further describe receiving and/or updating global weights and/or models. Claim 5 merely further describes obtaining parameters. Claim 6 merely further describes the second model. Claims 8-12 merely further describe the model weights and/or global weights. Claim 14 merely further describes obtaining and analyzing current operating parameter. Claim 15 merely further describes updating global weights. For at least the reasoning provided above, claims 1-15 are patent ineligible. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-15 contain allow able subject matter and would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this OFFICE ACTION . The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: As per claim 1, the examiner found no prior arts that teach or fairly suggest, either alone or in combination, each and every limitations of the claim. In particular, no prior arts teach “ the first model is trained based on a set of environment-related parameters, with the set of environment-related parameters corresponding to prior operations of the target computing device; and the second model incorporating a first set of global weights, wherein the first set of global weights is based on a set of environment-agnostic parameters, with the environment-agnostic parameters corresponding to operations of a set of computing devices similar to the target computing device; and cause to ascertain occurrence of an anomaly based on the analysis of the current operating parameter. ” The closest prior art cited by the examiner is Maha, Davoud (PG Pub. 2021/0,281,590 A1) [hereafter Maha]. Maha discloses an anomaly detection engine that periodically collects telemetry for a performance parameter and maintain a local trend line for the performance parameter. In addition, t he anomaly detection engine also receives from a cloud service a global trend line for the performance of parameter for a class of devices including the computing apparatus and perform anomaly detection including analyzing the local trend line and the global trend line. The claimed invention is different from the cited reference in that the claimed invention separates the collected operating parameters into a set of environment-related parameters corresponding to prior operations of the target computing device to train a first model and a set of environment-agnostic parameters corresponding to operations of a set of computing devices similar to the target computing device to train a second model. As per claim 7, the examiner found no prior arts that teach or fairly suggest, either alone or in combination, each and every limitations of the claim. In particular, no prior arts teach “ receiving a first set of model weights derived based on environment-agnostic parameters, wherein the environment-agnostic parameters correspond to operations of computing device, and are agnostic of environmental factors associated with the operations of the computing device; training a global model based on the first set of model weights; updating a set of global weights of the trained global model ”. Claim 13 is a computer-readable medium claim reciting similar features of claim 1 and are allowable for the same reasons. Claims 2-6, 8-10, 12, 14, 15 depend either directly or indirectly on claim 1, 7 or 13 and are allowable as a result. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PG Pub. 2021/0,042,843 A1 discloses a smart home controller that may analyze data received from a plurality of smart devices to determine potential risk of failure of monitored equipments . The smart home controller determine or identify the weather-related risks from data transmitted by smart devices such as thermometers, rain gauges, wind meters, or other weather meters or sensors , and receive current weather conditions, past weather conditions, and/or weather forecasts from an insurance provider or directly from weather monitoring service . PG Pub. 2020/0,117,530 A1 discloses an application performance management system that monitors operational elements and their metrics and metadata to adjust/create expert rules to be used in the analysis of the state of an operational element . PG Pub. 2023/0,161,662 A1 discloses a method for proactive support of computing assets by automatically collect ing operating data from a plurality of computing devices, analyz ing the operating data to identify predictive indicators associated with error conditions, identify ing a subset of affected computing devices that match the predictive indicators, and execut ing corrective scripts to remediate or avoid such error conditions before problems are experienced on the affected computing devices. PG Pub. 2022/0,260,973 A1 discloses a system including a first facility element having a sensor and configured to generate recent performance data associated with a system of a facility, and a monitoring and control element in communication with the first facility element, where the monitoring and control element is configured to identify one or more analogous facility elements analogous to the first facility element, receive the recent performance data for the first facility element, generate projected performance data for the facility element according to historical performance data associated with the facility element and the one or more analogous facility elements US Pat. 12,265,446 B1 discloses a method for performing an anomaly analysis with respect to an application. An anomaly score of the application is generated with respect to observed values of a plurality of metrics of the application. Non-patent literature “Machine Learning-based Approach to Detect Online Performance Problems in Distributed Systems” discusses detecting the root cause of a performance problem in a distributed system by inferring the operations flows from log files to be used as a performance indicator. Such information is complemented by system data, such as metrics of each node that is analyzed with two machine learning techniques, multivariate regression and one class support vector machine (OCSVM), with the purpose of predicting the expected performance and the presence of unusual events. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHAE M KO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3886 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9 am - 5 pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ashish Thomas can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-0631 . 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. /CHAE M KO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114