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 office action is responsive to the Amendment filed 1/27/2026.
Claims 1-7, 9-21 are pending.
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 1-7, 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: “Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
Yes. Claims 1-7, 9-12 and 21 are directed to a method, claims 13-19 are directed to a system and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Step 2:
Regarding claim 1, it recites:
A computer implemented method for identifying alert characteristics, the method comprising: receiving multiple alerts, each alert including a set of alert characteristics including an alert key, a text summary, and a time stamp of its first occurrence, wherein each alert represents an outage in a computer system
preprocessing the multiple alerts, the preprocessing including:
performing a term frequency-inverse document frequency algorithm on the text summary of each alert to determine summary field vectors; and
sorting the multiple alerts into blocks based on the time stamps of the multiple alerts; wherein the sortinq further comprises sortinq at least first and second alerts of the multiple alerts into a first block, determininq a third alert of the multiple alerts has a time stamp within a predetermined time ranqe that is based on the time stamps of the first and second alerts, and consequently sortinq the third alert into the first block, and determininq a fourth alert of the multiple alerts has a time stamp outside the predetermined time ranqe and subsequently sortinq the fourth alert into a second block;
performing a first clustering algorithm on the summary field vectors for the multiple alerts to determine multiple clusters, classifying each alert into a corresponding cluster;
generating a sequence for each block based on the clusters assigned to the alerts sorted into the block;
performing a sequence embedding algorithm on the sequence for each block to generate a sequence embedding for the block; performing principal component analysis on the sequence embedding for each block; and
performing a second clustering algorithm on the blocks to associate and group blocks that have a similar pattern of alerts into groupings.
Step 2A(I):
The abstract idea is recited in the following limitations:
preprocessing the multiple alerts, the preprocessing including:
‘performing a term frequency-inverse document frequency algorithm on the text summary of each alert to determine summary field vectors; and’ Interpreted as performance of a mathematical calculation.
‘sorting the multiple alerts into blocks based on the time stamps of the multiple alerts; wherein the sortinq further comprises sortinq at least first and second alerts of the multiple alerts into a first block, determininq a third alert of the multiple alerts has a time stamp within a predetermined time ranqe that is based on the time stamps of the first and second alerts, and consequently sortinq the third alert into the first block, and determininq a fourth alert of the multiple alerts has a time stamp outside the predetermined time ranqe and subsequently sortinq the fourth alert into a second block;’ interpreted as performance in the mind with the aid of pen and paper of organizing data.
‘performing a first clustering algorithm on the summary field vectors for the multiple alerts to determine multiple clusters, classifying each alert into a corresponding cluster;’ Interpreted as performance of a mathematical calculation.
‘generating a sequence for each block based on the clusters assigned to the alerts sorted into the block;’ Interpreted as performance in the mind with the aid of pen and paper by organizing data in a sequence.
‘performing a sequence embedding algorithm on the sequence for each block to generate a sequence embedding for the block;’ Interpreted as performance of a mathematical calculation.
‘performing principal component analysis on the sequence embedding for each block; and’ Interpreted as performance in the mind with the aid of pen and paper.
‘performing a second clustering algorithm on the blocks to associate and group blocks that have a similar pattern of alerts into groupings’ interpreted as performance of a mathematical calculation.
That is, other than reciting “computer-implemented” recited in the preamble, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or performing a mathematical calculation. A user could easily, with the use of pen and paper, reasoning listed above as annotation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A(II):
The judicial exceptions as recited are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 only recites a “computer-implemented method” implying a computer to perform the steps of listed above. The implied computer of the training in the limitations are recited at a high level of granularity such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component ((MPEP 2103.05(f)).
In addition, the following limitations are interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receiving multiple alerts, each alert including a set of alert characteristics including an alert key, a text summary, and a time stamp of its first occurrence, wherein each alert represents an outage in a computer system; - (Mere data gathering)
Step 2B:
The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea 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 additional element of implying using a computing system to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f). Receiving alerts is mere data gathering and amounts to WURC activity similar to “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information” (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
As such, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, it recites, “preprocessing the multiple alerts further includes: converting the alert key of each alert to a value by performing an encoding algorithm.” This is interpreted as an abstract idea of performing a mathematical calculation.
That is, other than reciting “computer-implemented” recited in the preamble, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or performing a mathematical calculation. A user could easily, with the use of pen and paper, reasoning listed above as annotation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exceptions as recited are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 only recites a “computer-implemented method” implying a computer to perform the steps of listed above. The implied computer of the training in the limitations are recited at a high level of granularity such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea 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 additional element of implying using a computing system to perform the recited steps amounts 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. Claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, it recites, “wherein sorting the multiple alerts includes: identifying a time difference between the time stamps of the multiple alerts.” This is interpreted as an abstract idea of performance in the mind with the aid of pen and paper.
That is, other than reciting “computer-implemented” recited in the preamble, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or performing a mathematical calculation. A user could easily, with the use of pen and paper, reasoning listed above as annotation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exceptions as recited are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 only recites a “computer-implemented method” implying a computer to perform the steps of listed above. The implied computer of the training in the limitations are recited at a high level of granularity such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea 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 additional element of implying using a computing system to perform the recited steps amounts 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. Claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, it recites, “wherein sorting the multiple alerts further includes: applying an algorithm to determine a mean and standard deviation of the time that each alert was received; and determining the blocks based on the mean and standard deviation of the time that each alert was received.” This is interpreted as an abstract idea of performing a mathematical calculation.
That is, other than reciting “computer-implemented” recited in the preamble, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or performing a mathematical calculation. A user could easily, with the use of pen and paper, reasoning listed above as annotation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exceptions as recited are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 only recites a “computer-implemented method” implying a computer to perform the steps of listed above. The implied computer of the training in the limitations are recited at a high level of granularity such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea 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 additional element of implying using a computing system to perform the recited steps amounts 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. Claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, it recites, “further comprising: assigning each of the multiple clusters an alphabetical and/or numeric character.” This is interpreted as an abstract idea of performance in the mind with the aid of pen and paper.
That is, other than reciting “computer-implemented” recited in the preamble, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or performing a mathematical calculation. A user could easily, with the use of pen and paper, reasoning listed above as annotation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exceptions as recited are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 only recites a “computer-implemented method” implying a computer to perform the steps of listed above. The implied computer of the training in the limitations are recited at a high level of granularity such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea 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 additional element of implying using a computing system to perform the recited steps amounts 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. Claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, it recites, “wherein performing principal component analysis converts the sequence embedding for each block to multiple dimensions.” This is interpreted as an abstract idea of performance in the mind with the aid of pen and paper by organizing data.
That is, other than reciting “computer-implemented” recited in the preamble, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or performing a mathematical calculation. A user could easily, with the use of pen and paper, reasoning listed above as annotation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exceptions as recited are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 only recites a “computer-implemented method” implying a computer to perform the steps of listed above. The implied computer of the training in the limitations are recited at a high level of granularity such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea 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 additional element of implying using a computing system to perform the recited steps amounts 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. Claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, it recites “outputting the groupings of the blocks; and storing the output grouping of the blocks in a database”. These additional elements amount to outputting and storing data which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) as well as WURC activities similar to “Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” and “Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” (MPEP 2106.05(d)). As such, these additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, it recites, “wherein performing a term frequency-inverse document frequency algorithm on the text summary of each alert determines common terms utilized to describe the alert within the text summary of the alert.” This is interpreted as further defining the abstract idea of performing a mathematical calculation.
That is, other than reciting “computer-implemented” recited in the preamble, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or performing a mathematical calculation. A user could easily, with the use of pen and paper, reasoning listed above as annotation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exceptions as recited are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 only recites a “computer-implemented method” implying a computer to perform the steps of listed above. The implied computer of the training in the limitations are recited at a high level of granularity such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea 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 additional element of implying using a computing system to perform the recited steps amounts 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. Claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, it recites, “wherein the alerts classified into a same cluster include similar content in the corresponding text summaries.”
This is interpreted as defining the data that is being organized within the abstract idea of claim 1 and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi): Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. Because claim 10 is directed to the abstract idea, it does not add significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, it recites, “wherein performing a sequence embedding algorithm on the sequence for each block creates a vector with standardized dimensions.” This is interpreted as further defining the abstract idea of performing a mathematical calculation.
That is, other than reciting “computer-implemented” recited in the preamble, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or performing a mathematical calculation. A user could easily, with the use of pen and paper, reasoning listed above as annotation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exceptions as recited are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 only recites a “computer-implemented method” implying a computer to perform the steps of listed above. The implied computer of the training in the limitations are recited at a high level of granularity such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea 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 additional element of implying using a computing system to perform the recited steps amounts 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. Claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, it recites, “wherein performing principal component analysis converts the sequence embedding to two dimensions.” This is interpreted as an abstract idea of performance in the mind with the aid of pen and paper by organizing data.
That is, other than reciting “computer-implemented” recited in the preamble, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or performing a mathematical calculation. A user could easily, with the use of pen and paper, reasoning listed above as annotation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exceptions as recited are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 only recites a “computer-implemented method” implying a computer to perform the steps of listed above. The implied computer of the training in the limitations are recited at a high level of granularity such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea 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 additional element of implying using a computing system to perform the recited steps amounts 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. Claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 21, it recites, “analyzing the groupings to determine alert characteristics; and predicting future outages in the computer system based on the analyzed groupings, thereby improving operation of the computer system”. It is noted that the claim does not put any limits on how the groupings are analyzed. Likewise, the claim also does not put any limits on how to “determine” or “predict”. These steps are recited at a high level of generality, as such, they are interpreted as an abstract idea of performance in the mind with the aid of pen and paper. It is further noted that the limitation “thereby improving operation of the computer” does not reflect the actual improvement in operation of the computer, but rather a conclusory statement. Claim 21 is not patent eligible.
Claims 13-20 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1-7. Thus claims 13-20 are similarly rejected. System, processor, memory, and non-transitory computer readable medium are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-4 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 3, “identifying a time difference between the time stamps of the multiple alerts” of claim 3 fails to limit the limitation “sortinq at least first and second alerts of the multiple alerts into a first block, determininq a third alert of the multiple alerts has a time stamp within a predetermined time ranqe that is based on the time stamps of the first and second alerts, and consequently sortinq the third alert into the first block, and determininq a fourth alert of the multiple alerts has a time stamp outside the predetermined time ranqe and subsequently sortinq the fourth alert into a second block;” of independent claim 1.
Claim 4 inherits the deficiency of claim 3 and is rejected on the same rationale.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “identifying a time difference between the time stamps of the multiple alerts” of claim 15 fails to limit the limitation “sortinq at least first and second alerts of the multiple alerts into a first block, determininq a third alert of the multiple alerts has a time stamp within a predetermined time ranqe that is based on the time stamps of the first and second alerts, and consequently sortinq the third alert into the first block, and determininq a fourth alert of the multiple alerts has a time stamp outside the predetermined time ranqe and subsequently sortinq the fourth alert into a second block;” of independent claim 13.
Claim 16 inherits the deficiency of claim 15 and is rejected on the same rationale.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Petroni United States Patent Application Publication US 2019/0012374 in view of Myaeng United States Patent Application Publication US 2011/0130123 and further in view of Bishop United States Patent Application Publication US 2015/0254969.
Regarding claim 1, Petroni discloses a computer implemented method for identifying alert characteristics, the method comprising:
receiving multiple alerts, each alert including a set of alert characteristics including an alert key, a text summary, and a time stamp of its first occurrence (Petroni, para [0076], fig 3a element 302, ingests information from social media platform, Petroni, para [0019], an example of a metadata of an event, with regards to fig 5g, “id” represents an alert key, “text” represents a text summary, “timestamp_ms” represents a timestamp);
preprocessing the multiple alerts (Petroni, para [0174], filters ingested data);
performing a first clustering algorithm on the summary field vectors for the multiple alerts to determine multiple clusters, classifying each alert into a corresponding cluster (Petroni, para [0176], uses supervised machine learning to classify events);
generating a sequence for each block based on the clusters assigned to the alerts sorted into the block (Petroni, para [0184], with regards to fig 12, element 1218, determines word sequences);
performing a sequence embedding algorithm on the sequence for each block to generate a sequence embedding for the block (Petroni, para [0184], with regards to fig 12, element 1218, determines feature vectors for word sequences);
performing principal component analysis on the sequence embedding for each block (Petroni, para [0184], with regards to fig 12, element 1218, classifies impact for word sequence and numerical reference pairs); and
performing a second clustering algorithm on the blocks to associate and group blocks that have a similar pattern of alerts into groupings (Petroni, para [0184, 185], with regards to fig 12, element 1218 and 1220, maps impacts to categories. Stores determined attributes as event representations).
Petroni does not disclose:
preprocessing the multiple alerts, the preprocessing including:
performing a term frequency-inverse document frequency algorithm on the text summary of each alert to determine summary field vectors; and
sortinq at least first and second alerts of the multiple alerts into a first block, determininq a third alert of the multiple alerts has a time stamp within a predetermined time ranqe that is based on the time stamps of the first and second alerts, and consequently sortinq the third alert into the first block, and determininq a fourth alert of the multiple alerts has a time stamp outside the predetermined time ranqe and subsequently sortinq the fourth alert into a second block”.
Myaeng discloses:
preprocessing the multiple alerts, the preprocessing including:
performing a term frequency-inverse document frequency algorithm on the text summary of each alert to determine summary field vectors (Myaeng, para [0050], uses tf-idf in text); and
sorting the multiple alerts into blocks based on the time stamps of the multiple alerts (Myaeng, para [0049 and 0065], results obtained through tf-idf is reordered by applying time information. Even though Myaeng does not literally mention grouping first, second, and third alerts into a first block and the fourth alert into a second block, Myaeng does teach reordering (sorting) results by applying time information and grouping results into different groups (blocks) having predetermined time.
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system organizing alerts to include the preprocessing steps of Myaeng to obtain “performing a term frequency-inverse document frequency algorithm on the text summary of each alert to determine summary field vectors; and sortinq at least first and second alerts of the multiple alerts into a first block, determininq a third alert of the multiple alerts has a time stamp within a predetermined time ranqe that is based on the time stamps of the first and second alerts, and consequently sortinq the third alert into the first block, and determininq a fourth alert of the multiple alerts has a time stamp outside the predetermined time ranqe and subsequently sortinq the fourth alert into a second block” as required by claim 1. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently analyze and organize data to be stored and further classified (Myaeng, para [0003 and 50]).
Petroni in view of Myaeng does not teach that each alert represents an outage in a computer system. However, Bishop teaches a system for providing aggregated network events/alerts/alarms based on geographic proximity and time [0018]. Bishop’s system includes collecting and aggregating event/alerts/alarms that relates to system issue/outage ([0088]). Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system organizing alerts taught by Petroni and Myaeng to include Bishop’s aggregated network alarm. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide Petroni and Myaeng’s system the ability to analyze and organize network alarm data.
Regarding claim 6, Petroni in view of Myaeng and Bishop disclose the method of claim 1. Petroni additionally discloses wherein performing principal component analysis converts the sequence embedding for each block to multiple dimensions (Petroni, para [0181], a binary vector whose dimensions correspond to the possible entity types , with the value at each dimension set to 1 only if the entity type appears in the surrounding k tokens of the candidate location ( e . g . , for k = 5 ) ; ( 3 ) a binary vector whose dimensions correspond to the possible part - of - speech tags , with the value at each dimension is set similar to above ; ( 4 ) a position offset of the candidate location in the news article ; ( 5 ) a 4 - dimensional binary vector that encodes the location representation in the four - level hierarchy ; and ( 6 ) a binary value which is set to 1 if the article contains another location that is more specific ( i . e . , has a higher lever in the taxonomy ) than the candidate location).
Regarding claim 7, Petroni in view of Myaeng and Bishop disclose the method of claim 1. Petroni additionally discloses outputting the groupings of the blocks and storing the output grouping of the blocks in a database. (Petroni, para [0184, 185], with regards to fig 12, element 1218 and 1220, maps impacts to categories. Stores determined attributes as event representations) (Bishop ([0071][0132]).
Regarding claim 9, Petroni in view of Myaeng and Bishop disclose the method of claim 1. Myaeng additionally discloses wherein performing a term frequency-inverse document frequency algorithm on the text summary of each alert determines common terms utilized to describe the alert within the text summary of the alert (Myaeng, para [0050], uses tf-idf in text).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system organizing alerts to include the preprocessing steps of Myaeng. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently analyze and organize data to be stored and further classified (Myaeng, para [0003 and 50]).
Regarding claim 10, Petroni in view of Myaeng and Bishop disclose the method of claim 1. Petroni additionally discloses wherein the alerts classified into a same cluster include similar content in the corresponding text summaries (Petroni, para [0088], fig 3, element 314, clusters generated based on unit data which is determined key concepts that are stored in a database).
Regarding claim 12, Petroni in view of Myaeng and Bishop disclose the method of claim 1. Petroni additionally discloses wherein performing principal component analysis converts the sequence embedding to two dimensions (Petroni, para [0181], a binary vector whose dimensions correspond to the possible entity types. Examiner interpretation, if there are 2 entity types the sequence embedding would be 2).
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is thus similarly rejected.
Claims 18 and 19 are substantially similar to claims 6 and 7 and are thus similarly rejected.
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is thus similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 21, Petroni in view of Myaeng and Bishop disclose the method of claim 1, and further teaches analyzing the groupings to determine alert characteristics; and predicting future outages in the computer system based on the analyzed groupings, thereby improving operation of the computer system (Petroni, para [0184, 185], with regards to fig 12, element 1218 and 1220, maps impacts to categories. Stores determined attributes as event representations), (Bishop [0001], [0002],[0016], [0018], [0021], [0111]-[0113], [0115]).
Claim(s) 2-5, 11, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Petroni United States Patent Application Publication US 2019/0012374 in view of Myaeng United States Patent Application Publication US 2011/0130123 and Bishop United States Patent Application Publication US 2015/0254969, in further view of Sainani United States Patent Application Publication US 2019/0034767.
Regarding claim 2, Petroni in view of Myaeng and Bishop discloses the method of claim 1. Petroni in view of Myaeng and Bishop does not disclose the additional limitations of the present claim.
Sainani discloses wherein preprocessing the multiple alerts further includes: converting the alert key of each alert to a value by performing an encoding algorithm (Sainani, para [0101], character encoding of metadata fields input data).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the preprocessing to include encoding. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide relevant information to later processing steps (Sainani, para [0101]).
Regarding claim 3, Petroni in view of Myaeng and Bishop discloses the method of claim 1. Petroni in view of Myaeng does not disclose the additional limitations of the present claim.
Sainani discloses wherein sorting the multiple alerts includes: identifying a time difference between the time stamps of the multiple alerts (Sainani, para [0061], proximates event groupings via a timeline).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the grouping to include time information. The motivation for doing so would have been to extract information relevant to a specific point in time (Sainani, para [0061]).
Regarding claim 4, Petroni in view of Myaeng and Bishop in further view of Sainani discloses the method of claim 3. Sainani additionally discloses wherein sorting the multiple alerts further includes: applying an algorithm to determine a mean and standard deviation of the time that each alert was received; and determining the blocks based on the mean and standard deviation of the time that each alert was received (Sainani, para [0254, 258], standardizes data with respect to mean and/or standardization with respect to standard deviation).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the grouping to include time information. The motivation for doing so would have been to use for further analysis of data for a machine learning model (para [0248]).
Regarding claim 5, Petroni in view of Myaeng and Bishop discloses the method of claim 1. Petroni in view of Myaeng does not disclose the additional limitations of the present claim.
Sainani discloses further comprising: assigning each of the multiple clusters an alphabetical and/or numeric character (Sainani, para [0101], character encoding of metadata fields input data).
Provide relevant information to later processing steps (Sainani, para [0101]).
Regarding claim 11, Petroni in view of Myaeng and Bishop discloses the method of claim 1. Petroni in view of Myaeng and Bishop does not disclose the additional limitations of the present claim.
Sainani discloses wherein performing a sequence embedding algorithm on the sequence for each block creates a vector with standardized dimensions (Sainani, para [0254, 258], data standardized in preprocessing stage prior to classification using machine learning model).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the grouping to include time information. The motivation for doing so would have been to use for further analysis of data for a machine learning model (para [0248]).
Claims 14-17 are substantially similar to claims 2-5 and are thus similarly rejected.
Response to arguments
Applicants’ arguments regarding the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argues:
“At least the above amendments to independent claim 1 recite a clear improvement in the functioning of the computer….”
Examiner respectfully disagrees since claim 1 does not reflect improvement of computer operations or capability. Claim 1, as analyzed above, recites steps that are mental process and/or mathematical algorithm. Regarding the additional element “receiving multiple alerts…”, the claim does not put any limits on how the alerts are received so this additional element is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) as well as WURC activities similar to “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information” (MPEP 2106.05(d)). The claim recites that the method is implemented on a computer, but the computer is recited as a high level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(f)). As such, these additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant further argues that Myaeng does not teach “sortinq at least first and second alerts of the multiple alerts into a first block, determininq a third alert of the multiple alerts has a time stamp within a predetermined time ranqe that is based on the time stamps of the first and second alerts, and consequently sortinq the third alert into the first block, and determininq a fourth alert of the multiple alerts has a time stamp outside the predetermined time ranqe and subsequently sortinq the fourth alert into a second block”.
As presented in the rejection above, even though Myaeng does not literally mention grouping first, second, and third alerts into a first block and the fourth alert into a second block, Myaeng does teach reordering (sorting) results by applying time information and grouping results into different groups (blocks) having predetermined time.
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system organizing alerts to include the preprocessing steps of Myaeng to obtain “performing a term frequency-inverse document frequency algorithm on the text summary of each alert to determine summary field vectors; and sortinq at least first and second alerts of the multiple alerts into a first block, determininq a third alert of the multiple alerts has a time stamp within a predetermined time ranqe that is based on the time stamps of the first and second alerts, and consequently sortinq the third alert into the first block, and determininq a fourth alert of the multiple alerts has a time stamp outside the predetermined time ranqe and subsequently sortinq the fourth alert into a second block” as required by claim 1. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently analyze and organize data to be stored and further classified (Myaeng, para [0003 and 50]).
Other arguments are moot in view of the new ground of the rejection.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kieu Vu whose telephone number is 571-272-4057. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6:30 am-4:30pm ET.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571)272-4057. 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.
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights