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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Rejections of Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 13, 17-19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, filed January 04, 2026, with respect to prior art rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The independent claims have been amended to integrate subject matter previously indicated as allowable. The 103 rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed regarding the 101 rejections of the claims, see Rejections of Claims 1-7, 9-19, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that obtaining data in the monitoring time window is a technical operation that supplies time-series operational data used by the claimed statistical and periodicity based online-status determination, rather than a pre-solution step that is divorced from the solution. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed data is recited at a high level of generality; the claims do not explicitly state the that the data is acquired from to the monitored application, and the type of data is only specified in claims 5 – 7 and 17 – 19. Acquiring some form of time-series data is necessary to perform a number of mathematical abstract ideas in the claims, including “determining a standard deviation of data in at least two sub-time windows” and “based on the standard deviation of the data in the at least two sub-time windows and/or variation information of the data in the first monitoring time window, determining whether a status of the first application is an online status, wherein the status of the first application is determined as being the online status in response to the data in the first monitoring time window changing periodically based on a period”. Therefore the claimed obtaining data is insignificant necessary data collection. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
Applicant does not directly argue regarding the data specified in claims 5 – 7 and 17 – 19, or the limitation added to claim 1 in amendments. As stated in the previous rejection, these limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant argues that the warning information is likewise not insignificant because it is generated following the determination, prompts activation of the monitoring system, and improves monitoring timeliness and reduces risk. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Referring to the Specification, the mentions of the warning information are in paragraphs 0028, 0072 and 0073. The format, recipient, and method for prompting activating of the monitoring system are not disclosed in the Specification. The warning information limitation amounts to transmitting an indication to an unspecified recipient, wherein the recipient performs the actual solution of activating the monitoring system. This limitation is not significant, because it does not meaningfully limit the claims beyond indicating that the solution of activating the monitoring system should be applied. This limitation is also amounts to necessary data outputting; there would be no need to perform the mental process of determining that a monitoring system should be activated if there is no means to prompt activation of said monitoring system. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1, 3 – 7, 9, 11 – 13, 15 – 19, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Below is an evaluation using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claim 1
Step 1:
Claim 1 is to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claim 1 recites
determining whether a first application satisfies a first condition;
wherein the determining whether the first application satisfies the first condition includes: determining whether the first application satisfies a first sub-condition included in the first condition and a second sub-condition included in the first condition
determining whether a monitoring system corresponding to the first application is activated;
in response to the status of the first application being the online status, sending warning information
which are abstract ideas of mental processes that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 1 further recites
determining a standard deviation of data in at least two sub-time windows included in the first monitoring time window;
based on the standard deviation of the data in the at least two sub-time windows and/or variation information of the data in the first monitoring time window, determining whether a status of the first application is an online status, wherein the status of the first application is determined as being the online status in response to the data in the first monitoring time window changing periodically based on a period, the period being associated with an application type of the first application
which are the abstract ideas of mathematical calculations. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 1 recites
the first sub-condition being indicative of a resource or a first data of the first application not having been delivered
which is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). Furthermore, a number of conditions may indicate that delivery was not successful, therefore the claim language as written does not prevent the sub-condition from being considered in the human mind.
Claim 1 further recites
in response to the first application satisfying the first condition and the monitoring system corresponding to the first application being not activated, obtaining data in a first monitoring time window
which is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). This amounts to necessary data gathering.
Claim 1 further recites
the warning information prompting activation of the monitoring system corresponding to the first application.
is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). This amounts to insignificant application. The warning information merely prompts activation of the monitoring system, and the claim language as written can be interpreted to cover a broad range of monitoring systems.
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 1 recites
the first sub-condition being indicative of a resource or a first data of the first application not having been delivered
which is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Furthermore, a number of conditions may indicate that delivery was not successful, therefore the claim language as written does not prevent the sub-condition from being considered in the human mind.
Claim 1 further recites
in response to the first application satisfying the first condition and the monitoring system corresponding to the first application being not activated, obtaining data in a first monitoring time window
which is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). This amounts to necessary data gathering.
Claim 1 further recites
the warning information prompting activation of the monitoring system corresponding to the first application.
is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). This amounts to insignificant application. The warning information merely prompts activation of the monitoring system, and the claim language as written can be interpreted to cover a broad range of monitoring systems.
Claim 3
Step 1:
Claim 3 is to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claim 3 recites the abstract ideas of Claim 2 by dependency.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 3 recites
wherein the first application is determined as satisfying the first sub-condition included in the first condition in response to the first application satisfying at least one of: delivery time of the resources corresponding to the first application in a delivery database being after a first moment, an application time of the resource corresponding to the first application in a cloud platform being after a second moment, a time of creating the resource corresponding to the first application in the cloud platform being after a third moment, or a time of generating the resource corresponding to the first application in the cloud platform being after a fourth moment.
which is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h). Furthermore, the claim language as written could be interpreted such that these conditions are detected in the human mind.
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 3 recites
wherein the first application is determined as satisfying the first sub-condition included in the first condition in response to the first application satisfying at least one of: delivery time of the resources corresponding to the first application in a delivery database being after a first moment, an application time of the resource corresponding to the first application in a cloud platform being after a second moment, a time of creating the resource corresponding to the first application in the cloud platform being after a third moment, or a time of generating the resource corresponding to the first application in the cloud platform being after a fourth moment.
which is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Furthermore, the claim language as written could be interpreted such that these conditions are detected in the human mind.
Claim 4
Step 1:
Claim 4 is to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claim 4 recites the abstract ideas of Claim 2 by dependency.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 4 recites
wherein the first application is determined as satisfying the second sub-condition included in the first condition in response to a current status of the first application being an online deployment status.
which is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 4 recites
wherein the first application is determined as satisfying the second sub-condition included in the first condition in response to a current status of the first application being an online deployment status.
which is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 5
Step 1:
Claim 5 is to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claim 5 recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1 by dependency.
Claim 5 recites
wherein obtaining the data in the first monitoring time window includes:
determining a starting point and an ending point of the first monitoring time window
which is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 5 recites
obtaining central processing unit (CPU) utilization data and/or memory utilization data between the starting point and the ending point
which is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). This element is mere data gathering for information within a time window.
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 5 recites
obtaining central processing unit (CPU) utilization data and/or memory utilization data between the starting point and the ending point
which is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). This element is mere data gathering for information within a time window.
Claim 6
Step 1:
Claim 6 is to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claim 6 recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1 by dependency.
Claim 6 recites
dividing the first monitoring time window into at least two sub-time windows of an equal length; and
determining a standard deviation of CPU utilization data and/or memory utilization data in each time window
which are the abstract ideas of mathematical calculations. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 6 recites
CPU utilization data and/or memory utilization data
which is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 6 recites
CPU utilization data and/or memory utilization data
which is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 7
Step 1:
Claim 7 is to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claim 7 recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1 by dependency.
Claim 7 recites
the standard deviation of CPU utilization data and/or memory utilization data in each sub-time window being greater than a first threshold, the first threshold being based on corresponding historical standard deviation
which is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 7 recites
CPU utilization data and/or memory utilization data
which is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 7 recites
CPU utilization data and/or memory utilization data
which is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claims 9, 11, 12
Step 1:
Claims 9, 11 and 12 are to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claims 9, 11 and 12 recite similar language to claims 1, 3 and 4, and recite similar abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 9 recites
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium strong instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method for data processing, the method comprising:
which is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Claims 9, 11 and 12 otherwise recite similar language to claims 1, 3 and 4 and similarly do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 9 recites
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium strong instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method for data processing, the method comprising:
which is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Claims 9, 11 and 12 otherwise recite similar language to claims 1, 3 and 4 and similarly do not amount to significantly more.
Claims 13 and 15 – 19
Step 1:
Claims 13 and 15 – 19 are to a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claims 13 and 15 – 19 recite similar language to claims 1 and 3 – 7, and recite similar abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 13 recites
An electronic device comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more memories communicatively connected to the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
which is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Claims 13 and 15 – 19 otherwise recite similar language to claims 1 and 3 – 7 and similarly do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 13 recites
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium strong instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method for data processing, the method comprising:
which is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Claims 13 and 15 – 19 otherwise recite similar language to claims 1 and 3 – 7 and similarly do not amount to significantly more.
Claim 22
Step 1:
Claim 22 is to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claim 22 recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1 by dependency.
Claim 22 recites
determining the period based on the application type of the first application
which is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). It is also a continuation of the periodicity abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 22 does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 22 does not recite additional elements.
Claim 23
Step 1:
Claim 23 is to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claim 23 recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1 by dependency.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 23 recites
wherein the period is 24 hours in response to the first application corresponding to an email or office software package, and the period is one month in response to the first application corresponding to a financial close system.
which is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Claim 23 recites
the period is 24 hours
the period is one month
which are additional elements that amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). A day and a month are well-known units of time.
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 23 recites
wherein the period is 24 hours in response to the first application corresponding to an email or office software package, and the period is one month in response to the first application corresponding to a financial close system.
which is an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 23 recites
the period is 24 hours
the period is one month
which are additional elements that amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). A day and a month are well-known units of time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11-13, 15-19 and 22-23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Subject matter previously indicated as allowable was integrated into the claims.
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 BRYAN PAI SONG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0510. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:30 AM - 8:30 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, ASHISH THOMAS can be reached at (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.
/B.P.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 2114
/ASHISH THOMAS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114