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 .
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application 18/456,021 filed on 06/03/2026.
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-20 are canceled in this Office Action
Claims 21, 23, 26, 29, 31, 34, 37, and 40 are amended in this Office Action
Claims 21-40 are pending in this Office Action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of Claims under 35 USC § 101
After reviewing the Applicant’s arguments filed in the remarks filed 06/03/2026 (pg. 10-17) regarding to the amended claims, the Examiner respectfully submits that the arguments are not persuasive.
The applicant amended claims 21, 29, and 37 to further include “monitoring, by a computer-management computing system, computing devices operably connected to the computer-management computing system via a network to generate a plurality of records storing operational metrics representing at least one of a performance or status of the computing devices” and “based on the one or more population-normalized frequent patterns, generating, by the computer-management computing system, a notification indicating at least one of the software configuration or the hardware configuration of the computing devices having the metric that indicates the failure”.
However, limitation “monitoring… computing devices operably connected to the computer-management computing system via a network to generate a plurality of records storing operational metrics representing at least one of a performance or status of the computing devices" in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper performing a generic monitoring step where one of ordinary skills in the art can monitor entities such as devices to collect desired data. One of ordinary skills in the art can observe or read available entities to collect data about the entities such as operational metrics relating to performance or status of the computing devices.
Limitation “based on the one or more population-normalized frequent patterns, generating…a notification indicating at least one of the software configuration or the hardware configuration of the computing devices having the metric that indicates the failure” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper generating an alert or notification when a condition is met. One of ordinary skills in the art can read the frequent patterns and create an alert when a condition, such as the configuration of the devices having the metric that indicates the failure, is met.
Limitations “…by the computer-management computing system…” throughout the claims merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The applicant further argued that the amended claims cannot be practically performed in the human mind and provides a technical improvement and are therefore patent eligible. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant and updated the claim rejections under 35 USC § 101 with respect to the amended claims. Please refer to the rejections under 35 USC § 101 below for further details.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 21, 29 and 37:
Step 1:
Claim 21 recites “A computer-implemented method …”; the claim recites a series of steps and therefore is process.
Claim 29 recites “A computing device for data mining …”, therefore the claim is a machine.
Claim 37 recites “A computer-readable hardware medium...” therefore the claim is a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 21, 29 and 37 recite limitations “monitoring, …computing devices operably connected to the computer-management computing system via a network to generate a plurality of records storing operational metrics representing at least one of a performance or status of the computing devices”; “determining… a subpopulation in the plurality of records”; “generating… a list of frequent items using the records of the subpopulation”; “generating… plurality of nodes using the plurality of records and based on the list of frequent items, wherein each node includes an accumulator having at least: (i) a first count of records from the subpopulation matching the respective node and (ii) a second count of records from the plurality of records matching the respective node”; “extracting…one or more population-normalized frequent patterns associated with the plurality of records based on the plurality of nodes, the population-normalized frequent patterns corresponding to patterns having a higher frequency of occurrence within the subpopulation of records as compared to a corresponding frequency of occurrence in the plurality of records”; and “based on the one or more population-normalized frequent patterns, generating,… a notification indicating at least one of the software configuration or the hardware configuration of the computing devices having the metric that indicates the failure”. The limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting " a computing device", “processor”, “a computer-readable hardware medium”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
Limitation “monitoring…computing devices operably connected to the computer-management computing system via a network to generate a plurality of records storing operational metrics representing at least one of a performance or status of the computing devices” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper performing a generic monitoring step where one of ordinary skills in the art can monitor entities such as devices to collect desired data. One of ordinary skills in the art can observe or read available entities to collect data about the entities such as operational metrics relating to performance or status of the computing devices.
Limitation “determining… a subpopulation in the plurality of records of computing devices, wherein the subpopulation includes records from the computing devices having a metric that indicates a failure” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper performing a generic determining step where one of ordinary skills in the art can read records belonging to computing devices and determine the metrics found in the records that indicates failures. Once the records that have metrics that indicate failure are found, one can group the records to a subpopulation.
Limitation “generating… a list of frequent items using the records of the subpopulation” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper creating a list that contain items belonging to the grouped records within the subpopulation. One of ordinary skills in the art can determine the items found in the subpopulation and list them based on their frequency.
Limitation “generating… a list of frequent items using the records of the subpopulation” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper creating a list that contain items belonging to the grouped records within the subpopulation. One of ordinary skills in the art can determine the items found in the subpopulation and list them based on their frequency.
Limitation “generating… plurality of nodes using the plurality of records and based on the list of frequent items, wherein each node includes an accumulator having at least: (i) a first count of records from the subpopulation matching the respective node and (ii) a second count of records from the plurality of records matching the respective node” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper creating or sketching plurality of nodes where each node can contain counts that satisfy matching of items in a subpopulation and counts that satisfy matching of items in a plurality of records. One of ordinary skills in the art can determine item count in each of subpopulation and the plurality of records and input the counts in the sketched nodes.
Limitation “extracting… one or more population-normalized frequent patterns associated with the plurality of records based on the plurality of nodes, the population-normalized frequent patterns corresponding to patterns having a higher frequency of occurrence within the subpopulation of records as compared to a corresponding frequency of occurrence in the plurality of records” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper determining instances where frequency of occurrence within the subpopulation is higher than frequency of occurrence in the plurality of records and extract particular information or pattern from the instances. One of ordinary skills in the art can determine frequent count of one population and compare it to another population to extract information such as a pattern that represent the comparison.
Limitation “based on the one or more population-normalized frequent patterns, generating…a notification indicating at least one of the software configuration or the hardware configuration of the computing devices having the metric that indicates the failure” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper generating an alert or notification when a condition is met. One of ordinary skills in the art can read the frequent patterns and create an alert when a condition, such as the configuration of the devices having the metric that indicates the failure, is met.
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “wherein the subpopulation includes records from the computing devices having a metric that indicates a failure” amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity ((MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims also recite additional elements “wherein the one or more population-normalized frequent patterns indicate at least one of a software configuration or a hardware configuration of the computing devices having the metric that indicates the failure” is merely generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data. The population-normalized frequent patterns are extracted based on the subpopulation of records as compared to a corresponding frequency of occurrence in the plurality of records wherein the records can associate with metrics that indicate failure. Thus, the extracted population-normalized frequent pattern can yield expected results that associates with least one of a software configuration or a hardware configuration of the computing devices having the metric that indicates the failure. Therefore, the limitation is merely generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim also recites an additional element “…by the computer-management computing system…” throughout the claims merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The computer system in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these 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 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 limitations “wherein the subpopulation includes records from the computing devices having a metric that indicates a failure”; “…by the computer-management computing system…”; and “wherein the one or more population-normalized frequent patterns indicate at least one of a software configuration or a hardware configuration of the computing devices having the metric that indicates the failure” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05 (g) and MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims 22, 30, and 38 :
Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 22, 30, and 38 recite limitations “extracting a candidate pattern…”; “calculating a subpopulation-match total of records in the subpopulation that match the candidate pattern…”; “calculating a general-match total of records that match the candidate pattern…”; and “selecting the candidate pattern as a population-normalized frequent pattern…”. The limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting " a computing device", “processor”, “a computer-readable hardware medium”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “extracting a candidate pattern…”; “calculating a subpopulation-match total of records in the subpopulation that match the candidate pattern…”; “calculating a general-match total of records that match the candidate pattern…”; and “selecting the candidate pattern as a population-normalized frequent pattern…” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper identify a particular pattern within a tree, determine the total match of the particular pattern for both the subpopulation and the general records, and determine whether the candidate pattern is a frequent pattern based on the comparisons between the subpopulation-match count and general-match count.
Dependent claims 23, 31, and 39 :
Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 23, 31, and 39 recite limitations “updating… the plurality of nodes, comprising: proceeding to select a child node of the root node that matches the first item in the record” and “update the accumulator of the child node based on the record…”, “the accumulator of the child node is updated by: incrementing, in the child node, the first count of records in response to determining that the record is a member of the subpopulation; and incrementing, in the child node, the second count of records from the plurality of records matching the child node”. That is, other than reciting " a computing device", “processor”, “a computer-readable hardware medium”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “updating… the plurality of nodes, comprising: proceeding… to select a child node of the root node that matches the first item in the record” and “update the accumulator of the child node based on the record…”, “the accumulator of the child node is updated by: incrementing, in the child node, the first count of records in response to determining that the record is a member of the subpopulation; and incrementing, in the child node, the second count of records from the plurality of records matching the child node” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper updating the counters of a tree or plurality of nodes by identifying whether each item of a particular record matches with the nodes and whether each record is part of the subpopulation.
Dependent claims 24 and 32 :
Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 24 and 32 recite limitations “responsive to determining that the root node has a child node matching the first item in the record, selecting the child node for traversal; and “responsive to determining that the root node does not have a child node matching the first item in the record, creating a new child node having a label matching the first item.” That is, other than reciting " a computing device", “processor”, “a computer-readable hardware medium”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “responsive to determining…” and “selecting or creating…” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper determine whether to create a new leaf node or select an existing leaf node based on the matching process.
Dependent claims 25 and 33:
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements “the accumulator comprises a Monoid algebraic structure”; this limitation is a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B:
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “the accumulator comprises a Monoid algebraic structure” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claims 26, 34, and 40 :
Step 2A Prong One:
Claims 26, 34, and 40 recite limitations “the list of frequent items is generated based on at least one of a maximum-support parameter or a minimum support parameter…” That is, other than reciting " a computing device", “processor”, “a computer-readable hardware medium”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “the list of frequent items is generated based on at least one of a maximum-support parameter or a minimum support parameter…” in the context of this claim encompass a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper compare the occurrence of each item in a subpopulation to certain thresholds and excludes the items that are out of range of the thresholds.
Dependent claims 27 and 35:
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements “each node of the plurality of nodes further comprises a list of representative identifiers of records that match that node”; this limitation amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B:
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “each node of the plurality of nodes further comprises a list of representative identifiers of records that match that node” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 28 and 36:
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements “the subpopulation comprises records from computing devices having a metric that indicates a system failure”; this limitation amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity ((MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B:
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “the subpopulation comprises records from computing devices having a metric that indicates a system failure” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAO DANG VUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1812. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30-5 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, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571) 272-8352. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.D.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2153 06/23/2026
/KAVITA STANLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights