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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recites a limitation(s) of parsing and analyzing the error descriptions from the error messages to identify error messages that have the same or similar error type; identifying skipped data records that were not processed to completion during execution of the application and determine a skipped records count based on the error type; comparing the error pattern to a database of observed error patterns; wherein the observed error patterns are previously determined from historical observed errors, which is a mental process.
The claim(s) recites a series of steps and, therefore, is/are a process. The limitation(s), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “memory,” “processor,” “medium,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “parsing” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses a user parsing and analyzing the error descriptions from the error messages to identify error messages that have the same or similar error type, “identifying” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses the user identifying skipped data records that were not processed to completion during execution of the application and determine a skipped records count based on the error type, “comparing” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses the user comparing the error pattern to a database of observed error patterns; wherein the observed error patterns are previously determined from historical observed errors, and “determining” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses the user determining an impacted revenue amount from the charge amounts that is caused by the skipped data records not being processed to completion. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, a step of in response to the error pattern matching one of the observed error patterns, retrieving the corrective action that is assigned to the observed error pattern is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering the corrective action for use in the executing step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, the claim(s) recites additional elements of “memory,” “processor,” “medium,” which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic “processor” performing a generic computer function of “for a selected application that was executed by the computing system, accessing a system error log via network communications and identifying error messages that occurred during execution, wherein the error messages include an error description,” or “displaying, on a graphical user interface GUI, a list of error types that aggregate the error descriptions by error type and display a total number of skipped records associated with each error type,” or “executing a resolving function to resolve a selected error type from the list of error types that has an associated group of skipped data records by at least: generating an error pattern from an error message from the selected error type by extracting features from the error message,” or “wherein each observed error pattern includes a corrective action assigned to the observed error pattern that is configured to resolve the observed error pattern,” or “executing the corrective action to resolve the error message on the group of skipped data records,” or “re-executing processing of the group of skipped data records in response to the corrective action being completed,” or “generating and displaying a total number of skipped data records that remain after re-execution” or “accessing the skipped data records and identifying data fields that identify charge amounts.”) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements 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(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim(s) does not provide any indication that the recited system/medium is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the step of “in response to the error pattern matching one of the observed error patterns, retrieving the corrective action that is assigned to the observed error pattern” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. In addition, the additional elements of using “memory,” “processor,” “medium” to perform the claimed invention amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
The amendments overcome the objection/rejection under informalities, 103.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 101, the Remarks state, “Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that the above claimed functions are not "a generic computer function… execution, wherein the error messages include an error description" is a specific computer function directed to a specific computer object (the system error log for the selected application) and identifies specific execution data (the error messages that occurred during execution)… The claimed function "displaying, on the GUI, a list of error types that aggregate the error descriptions by error type and display a total number of skipped data records associated with each error type" is not a generic function, but a specific function based on the previous specifically identified data from the system error log. The same is true for the remaining claim elements. The claimed functions "executing the corrective action to resolve the error message on the group of skipped data records," and "re-executing processing of the group of skipped data records in response to the corrective action being completed," are not generic but specific functions to perform the specific solution implemented by the present system.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. A system error log of a computing system, or displaying a list of error types on the GUI is a generic computer function. In addition, “executing the corrective action to resolve the error message” in claim 1, or even claim 6 recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, and thus are mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The Remarks state, “The Specification Describes the Technical Improvement.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims recite selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. Intellectual Ventures v. Cap One Bank, found collecting, displaying and manipulating data, as well as, customizing information and presenting it to users based on particular characteristics are concepts of abstract idea.
The Remarks state, “Claims Recite a Specific Solution to a Problem” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. “executing the corrective action to resolve the error message” in claim 1, or even in claim 6 recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, and thus are mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KATHERINE LIN whose telephone number is (571)431-0706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST.
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.
/KATHERINE LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights