DETAILED ACTION
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 1 recites “computer-readable media”. The specification in para 0142 states: “A computer-readable medium may take many forms, including non-volatile media and volatile media. Non-volatile media include, for example, optical or magnetic disks and other persistent memory. Volatile media include dynamic random access memory (“DRAM”). Common forms of computer-readable media include, for example, a solid state drive, a flash drive, a hard disk, any other magnetic medium, a CD-ROM, DVD, any other optical medium, RAM, programmable read-only memory (“PROM”), erasable programmable read-only memory (“EPROM”), a USB memory stick, any other memory chip or cartridge, or any other medium from which a computer can read. The term ‘non-transitory computer-readable media’ specifically excludes transitory propagating signals, carrier waves, and wave forms or other intangible or transitory media that may nevertheless be readable by a computer”. “Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media” in Official Gazette Notice 1351 OG 212 (February 23, 2010) states: “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter.”
As such, it can interpreted as a “signal” in which a "signal" embodying functional descriptive material is neither a process ("actions"), machine, manufacture nor composition of matter (i.e., tangible "thing") and therefore does not fall within one of the four categories of § 101. Rather "signal" is a form of energy, in the absence of any physical structure or tangible material. Examiner recommends using “non-transitory computer-readable media” to overcome the rejection. Please see, “Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media” in Official Gazette Notice 1351 OG 212 (February 23, 2010). Claims 2-15 are rejected similarly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Independent Claim(s) 1,16, and 20 are directed to the abstract idea of a human using a pen and paper to reason and calculate a confidence score. For example, human can determine a root cause of an event and determine a final confidence score based on description-based confidence score and the cause-based confidence score. A human can do calculations to come up with the final confidence score. Furthermore, a human can determine if historical event is semantically similar based on reading descriptions of the events.
Regarding claim 1: the limitation of “receiving a description of a current event;
determining a candidate root cause of the current event using a generative language model and the description of the current event, wherein the candidate root cause of the current event is a textual response from the generative language model;
determining a description-based confidence score based at least in part on the description of the current event and based at least in part on descriptions of a set of relevant historical events in a target domain, wherein, for the set of relevant historical events, relevance depends on semantic similarity between the description of the current event and the descriptions of the set of relevant historical events, respectively;
determining a cause-based confidence score based at least in part on the candidate root cause of the current event and based at least in part on root causes of the set of relevant historical events;
using a confidence mapping model to determine a final confidence score based at least in part on the description-based confidence score and the cause-based confidence score; and outputting the final confidence score” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 only recites the additional elements of: “One or more computer-readable media having stored thereon computer-executable instructions for causing a processing system, when programmed thereby, to perform operations” which are all recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer components performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer under MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The storing of the recited information in a database is insignificant extra-solution activity that amounts to nothing more than mere necessary data gathering and is insignificant extra-solution data gathering under MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional elements as a combination and the claim as a whole, they still do not provide any integration into a practical application. The additional elements of “storing” information in a database and “acquiring” information which were indicated as insignificant extra-solution activity, are still insignificant when re-evaluated as these are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) for evidence of these operations being court-identified as WURC provided at least by “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” and/or “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).”Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Corresponding method claim 16 and system claim 20 are rejected similarly as claim 1 above. As such, claims 1-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art of record. Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAFIZ E HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at (571)272-7488. 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.
/NAFIZ E HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693