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 Final Office Action is in response to the application 18/456,021 filed on 09/08/2025.
Status of Claims:
Claims 21, 29, and 37 are amended in this Office Action
Claims 21-40 are pending in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of Claims under 35 USC § 101
After reviewing the Applicant’s arguments filed in the remarks filed 09/08/2025 (pg. 13-14) 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 “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" 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”.
However, 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 “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)).
Limitation “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 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 “determining a subpopulation…” which recites “determining a subpopulation in the plurality of records”; “generating a list…” which recites “generating a list of frequent items using the records of the subpopulation”; “generating plurality of nodes…” which recites “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” and “extracting one or more population-normalized frequent patterns…” which recites “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”. 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 “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.
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 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” 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)).
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)).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Kobayashi et al. (US PGPUB 20050283680) is directed to detection of an occurrence pattern of an event from an event log based upon information concerning plural kinds of relationships defined among events, such as a simultaneity rule, an order rule, a proximity rule, a cause determination rule, and a result prediction rule and an occurrence pattern of the detected event is output. Accordingly, when an occurrence pattern of an event is detected from event data storing information concerning an occurred event, detailed information about an occurrence pattern of an event can be extracted from an event log. The system is also used to detect an occurrence of a system failure or the like in advance through correlation with an event collection recorded in an event log. A management efficiency of a system can be supported by performing the pattern detecting processing.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 at (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 11/26/2025
/KAVITA STANLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153