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
Claims 1-7, 10-15, and 18-19 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.
Regarding to claims 1-7
Claim 1
A method comprising:
a. receiving a search query including a stack trace;
b. parsing the search query by removing irrelevant data from the stack trace to generate a parsed search query;
c. searching a data source based on the parsed search query to generate one or more search results, the data source including a class mapping table, the class mapping table including one or more programming classes and one or more links, the one or more search results including at least a part of the one or more links associated with the class mapping table;
c1. wherein each link of the one or more links, when selected, causes an access to a corresponding source code;
c2. wherein the corresponding source code is stored at a first data repository different from a second data repository storing the class mapping table;
d. causing display of a presentation of the one or more search results including the at least a part of the one or more links; and
e. in response to a selection of one of the one or more links, accessing source code of a programing class corresponding to the selection and associated with the stack trace;
f. wherein at least a part of the method is performed using one or more processors.
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least one step or act, including steps a) - f). Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Step b. “parsing the search query by removing irrelevant data from the stack trace to generate a parsed search query” This step can be performed in human mind by observing irrelevant data in the stack trace and remove it. This step is nothing more than observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea)
Step c. “searching a data source based on the parsed search query to generate one or more search results, the data source including a class mapping table, the class mapping table including one or more programming classes and one or more links, the one or more search results including at least a part of the one or more links associated with the class mapping table” Searching information in database is simply an evaluation/comparison of one data (e.g., query) to another data (e.g., data in the data source) to identify matching data. This step is nothing more than observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea). Step c1. wherein each link of the one or more links, when selected, causes an access to a corresponding source code is an act of a person evaluates search results to select one of the results. Step c1. is nothing more than observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea).
“Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, steps b, c, and c1 fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Limitations b, c, and c1 are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
The claim recites the additional elements/limitations
receiving a search query including a stack trace;
c2. wherein the corresponding source code is stored at a first data repository different from a second data repository storing the class mapping table;
d. causing display of a presentation of the one or more search results including the at least a part of the one or more links; and
e. in response to a selection of one of the one or more links, accessing source code of a programing class corresponding to the selection and associated with the stack trace;
f. wherein at least a part of the method is performed using one or more processors.
a) MPEP § 2106.05(a) "Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field."
There is no improvement to Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field. The limitation a. obtaining a query that includes a stack trace, c2. the locations of source code and the class mapping table, d. display the results, e. accessing source code of programing class and associated with stack trace/query, and f. performed by processor(s). These limitations do not make any improvements to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, or any other technologies.
b) MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine. The judicial exception does not apply to any particular machine.
The claim is silent regarding specific limitations directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory, network, database, or Internet, nor do applicant direct examiner’s attention to such specific limitations. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea on 'an Internet computer network' or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea."). Applying this reasoning here, the claim is not directed to a particular machine, but rather merely implement an abstract idea using generic computer components such as “query”, “processor”, “stack trace”, “first and second data repository”, “links”, “source code”, “programming class”, “class mapping table”. Thus, the claims fail to satisfy the "tied to a particular machine" prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
c) MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation.
The claim operates to a. obtaining a query that includes a stack trace, c2. the locations of source code and the class mapping table, d. display the results, e. accessing source code of programing class and associated with stack trace/query, and f. performed by processor(s). The steps are not a "transformation or reduction of an article into a different state or thing constituting patent-eligible subject matter[.]" See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd sub nom, Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010); see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("The mere manipulation or reorganization of data ... does not satisfy the transformation prong."). Applying this guidance here, the claims fail to satisfy the transformation prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
d) MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
This section of the MPEP guides: Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. 450 U.S. 175, ... (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to the use of the Arrhenius equation ( an abstract idea or law of nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding press. 450 U.S. at 177-78 .... The Court evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184... In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S._ .... In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity. MPEP § 2106.05(e). The limitations a. obtaining a query that includes a stack trace, c2. the locations of source code and the class mapping table, d. display the results, e. accessing source code of programing class and associated with stack trace/query, and f. performed by processor(s) are not meaningful limitations because they are pre and post-solution activities. The limitations are not meaningful limitations.
e) MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The limitations a. obtaining a query that includes a stack trace, c2. the locations of source code and the class mapping table, d. display the results, e. accessing source code of programing class and associated with stack trace/query, and f. performed by processor(s) are not meaningful limitations because collecting and displaying are pre and post-solution activities
f) MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
[T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token pre- or post-solution activity-such as identifying a relevant audience, a category of use, field of use, or technological environment. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Limitations “query”, “processor”, “stack trace”, “first and second data repository”, “links”, “source code”, “programming class”, “class mapping table” are simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the additional limitations a. obtaining a query that includes a stack trace, c2. the locations of source code and the class mapping table, d. display the results, e. accessing source code of programing class and associated with stack trace/query, and f. performed by processor(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite any non-convention or non-generic arrangement because a. obtaining a query that includes a stack trace, d. display the results, e. accessing search results, and f. performed by processor(s) are all conventional activities. Taking these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when the elements are taken individually. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 2 recites “wherein the parsing the search query includes identifying one or more search terms in the stack trace; and wherein the parsed search query includes the one or more identified search terms.” The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 3 recites “wherein the data source is a first data source and the one or more search results are one or more first search results, wherein the method further comprises searching a second data source based on the parsed search query to generate one or more second search results.” The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 4 recites “wherein the irrelevant data includes one or more common errors.” The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 5 recites “wherein the irrelevant data includes one or more timestamps.” The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 6 recites “wherein the data source includes an error discussion database; wherein the one or more search results include one or more user generated postings stored in the error discussion database; wherein the method further comprises: generating a ranking of the one or more search results; and generating a representation of the one or more search results based on the ranking.” Ranking can be performed in human mind because a person can evaluate the results and give a score/rank to search results. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 depends on claim 6 and includes all the limitations of claim 6. Claim 7 recites “wherein each search result of the one or more search results indicates a number of errors, wherein the ranking is based on the number of errors.” The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 10-15 and 19 are similar to claim 1-7. The claim are rejected based on the same reasons
Claim 18 depends on claim 10 and includes all the limitations of claim 10. Claim 18 recites “wherein the one or more search results include an indication of a first class and one or more errors associated with the first class” The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAU HAI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5894. The examiner can normally be reached 1st biwk: Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM-5:00 PM; 2nd biwk: Mon-Thurs: 7:00 am-5:00pm, Fri: 7:00 am - 4:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
HAU HAI. HOANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/HAU H HOANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154