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) 1-7, 10-14, 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. However, the claimed invention is directed to performing steps that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind. An analysis of the claims regarding subject matter eligibility follows:
Step1: Claim(s) 1-7, 10-14, 16-21 recite a method, a medium, and a system, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim(s) 1, 10, 16 recite identifying, by a management controller of a first data processing system of the data processing system, an occurrence of an incident; identifying, by the management controller, at least two other data processing systems of the data processing system used by personnel assigned to manage issues impacting at least the first data processing system, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations entirely in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the steps of identifying an occurrence of an incident, and identifying at least two other data processing systems of the data processing system used by personnel assigned to manage issues impacting at least the first data processing system may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, and judgement of data processing systems (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection Ill). For example, “identifying” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses a user identifying an occurrence of an incident, and “identifying” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses the user identifying at least two other data processing systems of the data processing system used by personnel assigned to manage issues impacting at least the first data processing system.
Claim(s) 2-7, 11-14, 17-21 recite further limitations that fall under the judicial exception as recited in claim(s) 1, 10, 16. Each of the further limitations encompass performance of the steps within the human mind.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The additional elements recited in claim(s) 1, 10, 16, “data processing system,” “medium,” “processor,” “memory,” “reporting, by the management controller, the occurrence of the incident to the at least two other data processing systems to initiate an incident response for the incident;” “reporting, by the management controller, assignment of one of a personnel to attempt to manage the incident as part of the incident response to the at least two other data processing systems;” “obtaining, by the management controller and from one of the other data processing systems used by the one of the personnel, a notification indicating that the incident has been remediated;” “reporting, by the management controller and to the at least two other data processing systems, that the incident has been remediated so that all of the at least two other data processing systems are informed of the remediation of the incident and the incident response is ended,” and “the management controller being a separate and independently operating computing device that is physically installed within the first data processing system” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations are directed to implementing the abstract idea using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and recite mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim(s) 2-7, 11-14, 17-21 recite further details regarding prohibiting an activity, a portion not assigned to manage the incident, updating information, providing feedback. These claims contain no additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 identified abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim(s) 1, 10, 16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong 2 above, the recitations of “data processing system,” “medium,” “processor,” “memory,” “reporting, by the management controller, the occurrence of the incident to the at least two other data processing systems to initiate an incident response for the incident;” “reporting, by the management controller, assignment of one of a personnel to attempt to manage the incident as part of the incident response to the at least two other data processing systems;” “obtaining, by the management controller and from one of the other data processing systems used by the one of the personnel, a notification indicating that the incident has been remediated;” “reporting, by the management controller and to the at least two other data processing systems, that the incident has been remediated so that all of the at least two other data processing systems are informed of the remediation of the incident and the incident response is ended” and “the management controller being a separate and independently operating computing device that is physically installed within the first data processing system” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data using generic computers and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
Regarding claim(s) 2-7, 11-14, 17-21, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they simply apply the exception using a generic computer.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-7, 10-14, 16-21 recite an abstract idea without significantly more, and are not patent eligible.
Response to Remarks
The amendments overcome the rejection under 102.
Applicant's Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 101, the Remarks state, “In contrast to the alleged mental processes aided by pen and paper, the disclosed method utilizing the independent management controller (a computer within the computer that is the first data processing system) enables incidents to be accurately identified within the first data processing system and managed before wasting resources (both computational and human) on redundant remedial processes originating from other systems in the data processing systems.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites an abstract idea of identifying an occurrence of an incident by using generic computer component like a management controller.
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 at (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