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.
Claims 1-7,9,17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind.
Regarding claim 1, with the exception of the recitation of the limitation ‘data processor’, the claims recites mental processes, concepts performed in the human mind.
The limitations ‘pre-processing the error string in preparation for classification by at least one of character editing, tokenization, and stemming to standardize input to a hardware-based classifier component; extracting features from the pre-processed error string to transform it for the hardware- based classifier component; identify an error condition in a server of the network; studying a pattern of the identified error condition to generate one or more recommendations for a fix to the identified error condition; displaying, through a graphical user interface to a user the recommendations for selection of a solution; upon response from the user’ are concepts that are able to performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation and/or judgment.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘classifying, through the hardware-based classifier component of the self-healing hardware component, the error condition using an artificial intelligence (AI) based classifier trained using a machine learning (ML) model, and utilizing a hardware-based AI component comprising a data collection component, a training component, and an inference component, and contains historical information regarding performance of the network to continuously train a machine learning (ML) algorithm to identify system issues including the error condition; data processor; by the AI component; through an automated script; by a resolver component of the self-healing component’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘receiving, in a self-healing hardware component, an alert message generated by the data protection network, and comprising an error string; logging the error string into a module-based log file automated to standardize error messages across a product line and customizable to accommodate additional details; querying the network to retrieve historical data of past network issues; applying the recommendations in a priority order until one of resolution of the error condition or exhaustion of all of the one or more recommendations without resolution is achieved; causing the self-healing component to implement at least an identified recommendation in to automatically resolve an issue causing the identified error condition to improve backup performance of the backup server’ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The ‘causing the self-healing component to implement’ limitation is using a generic component to resolve an error, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation ‘wherein the error condition is identified by at least one of: receiving an error notification through an interface - are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), identifying an error message in an event log - are concepts that are able to performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation and/or judgment, and detecting an out-of-tolerance behavior of a component of the server – are concepts that are able to performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation and/or judgment‘.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation ‘wherein the out-of-tolerance behavior comprises at least one of an excessive processor usage, memory usage, or network bandwidth usage’ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of choosing which data to gather.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation ‘wherein the ML model is trained using error conditions manifest during the execution of a data protection program in one or more customer environments’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 5, the limitation ‘wherein the error conditions comprise at least one of: configuration parameter faults, integration configuration issues, large-scale environment problems, backup failures, fault tolerance, performance issues, memory leaks, restore failures, data unavailability, data loss, or upgrade failure’ are concepts that are able to performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation and/or judgment.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation ‘wherein the hardware-based classifier component implements one of a Naive Bayes classifier, a k-nearest neighbors (KNN) algorithm, or a support vector machine (SVM) algorithm’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 7, the limitation ‘further comprising training the ML model for one of the KNN or SVM algorithm using at least one of CPU usage, memory usage, disk utilization, network traffic, error logs, system response time, system availability, or security events’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 9, the limitation ‘wherein the network comprises a PowerProtect Data Domain deduplication backup system’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 17, with the exception of the recitation of the limitations ‘A computer program product comprising instructions stored on anon-transitory computer-readable medium which, when executed by a processor; data processor’, the claims recites mental processes, concepts performed in the human mind.
The limitations ‘pre-processing the error string in preparation for classification by at least one of character editing, tokenization, and stemming to standardize input to a hardware-based classifier component; extracting features from the pre-processed error string to transform it for the hardware- based classifier component; identify an error condition in a server of the network; studying a pattern of the identified error condition to generate one or more recommendations for a fix to the identified error condition; upon response from the user’ are concepts that are able to performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation and/or judgment.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘A computer program product comprising instructions stored on anon-transitory computer-readable medium which, when executed by a processor; data processor; classifying, through the hardware-based classifier component of the self-healing hardware component, the error condition using an artificial intelligence (AI) based classifier trained using a machine learning (ML) model, and utilizing a hardware-based AI component comprising a data collection component, a training component, and an inference component, and contains historical information regarding performance of the network to continuously train a machine learning (ML) algorithm to identify system issues including the error condition; data processor; by the AI component; through an automated script; by a resolver component of the self-healing component’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘receiving, in a self-healing hardware component, an alert message generated by the data protection network, and comprising an error string; logging the error string into a module-based log file automated to standardize error messages across a product line and customizable to accommodate additional details; querying the network to retrieve historical data of past network issues; applying the recommendations in a priority order until one of resolution of the error condition or exhaustion of all of the one or more recommendations without resolution is achieved; causing the self-healing component to implement at least an identified recommendation in to automatically resolve an issue causing the identified error condition to improve backup performance of the backup server; displaying, through a graphical user interface to a user the recommendations for selection of a solution;’ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The ‘causing the self-healing component to implement’ limitation is using a generic component to resolve an error, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation ‘wherein the error condition is identified by at least one of: receiving an error notification through an interface - are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), identifying an error message in an event log - are concepts that are able to performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation and/or judgment, and detecting an out-of-tolerance behavior of a component of the server – are concepts that are able to performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation and/or judgment‘.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation ‘wherein the model is trained using error conditions manifest during the execution of a data protection program in one or more customer environments’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: ‘The method of claim 9’ should be: ‘The method of claim 1’. Appropriate correction is required.
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: ‘hardware-based health monitor’; ‘classifier component’ in claim 10; ‘resolver component’ in claim 10.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered. The 101 rejection still stands. Concerning the arguments for the 101 rejection that the claims disclose ‘specific computer or hardware-implemented elements that specific useful processes to improve backup server performance in a data protection system’. The ‘specific compute or hardware-implemented elements’ are recited at a high level of generality. The claim has not been integrated into a practical application. Some limitations are cited as mental processes, some limitations are cited as generic computer components, and some limitations are cited as insignificant extra-solution activity. Please see the above limitation. The ‘self-healing component’ that is part of self-healing of a backup server is described in generic terms.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yolanda L Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-3653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30 am - 4 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, 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.
/Yolanda L Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113