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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action in response to communications received on 9/18/25.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 have been amended.
Claim 7 has been cancelled.
Claims 11-12 have been added.
Therefore, Claims 1-6, 8-12 are now pending and have been addressed below.
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 1-6, 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
In the instant case, claims 1-6, 8, 11-12 are directed to a system, claim 9 is directed to a method and claim 10 is directed to a non-transitory medium. Thus, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 1 Identifying a Judicial Exception
Under Step 2A, prong 1, Claims 1-6, 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 9 and 10 recite troubleshooting methods that acquiring multiple pieces of document data which describe content of a problem relating to multiple articles or services; extracting, from the multiple pieces of document data, multiple first keywords relating to the multiple articles or services together with attribute information; recording the multiple first keywords for the respective pieces of attribute information; and determine, a first display manner of first data relating to a second keyword with a higher rate of occurrence among the first keywords recorded in the memory; determining a second display manner of first data relating to a second keyword with a lower rate of occurrence among the first keywords recorded in the memory. wherein the first display manner and the second display manner are different in at least one of a display object or a display format, causing respective pieces of first data to be displayed in the determined first display manner and the determined second display manner.
These limitations as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (including commercial interactions such as business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), including interactions between person and computer), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the structural elements (such as processing circuitry, a memory, non-transitory medium, processor, display), the claims are directed to troubleshooting problem relating to service or article and displaying data based on rate of occurrence. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving data, analyzing it, and determining display manner based on rate of occurrence of keywords. In particular, the claims only recites the additional element – processing circuitry, a memory, non-transitory medium, processor, display. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see spec [0027]). Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims are directed to an abstract idea. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c), or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering Additional Elements
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims describe how to generally “apply” to; troubleshooting problem relating to service or article and displaying data based on rate of occurrence. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims are not significantly more because they are part of the identified judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims are not patent eligible. With respect to the processing circuitry, a memory, non-transitory medium, processor , display, these limitations are described in Applicant’s own specification as generic and conventional elements. See Applicants specification, Paragraph [0027] details “ The processing circuitry 11 includes at least one processor. The processor is circuitry such as a CPU (central processing unit), [0028] The memory 12 is a device for storing various kinds of data or information. [0025] The display device 5 may be a liquid crystal display, a plasma display, an organic EL display, or an LED display. The display device 5 may receive various operations for the displayed data or information. The display device 5 is an example of a display unit.” These are basic computer elements applied merely to carry out data processing. Furthermore, the use of such generic computers to receive or transmit data over a network has been identified as a well understood, routine and conventional activity by the courts. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AVAuto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)). Lastly, the additional elements provides only a result-oriented solution which lacks details as to how the computer performs the claimed abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, these steps/components are not explicitly recited and therefore must be construed at the highest level of generality and amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Therefore, the claimed invention does not demonstrate a technologically rooted solution to a computer-centric problem or recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the function of any computer itself, applying the exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment such as computing. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Taking the additional claimed elements individually and in combination, the computer components at each step of the process perform purely generic computer functions. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8, 11-12 add additional limitations, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as representative Independent claims.
Claims 2-4 recites wherein, if a rate of occurrence of a predetermined second keyword is higher than rates of occurrence of other second keywords, the processing circuitry determines the display manner such that displaying of the first data relating to the predetermined second keyword is prioritized over displaying of the first data relating to the other second keywords; wherein, if a rate of occurrence of a predetermined second keyword in a predetermined period is higher than rates of occurrence of other second keywords in the predetermined period, the processing circuitry determines the display manner such that displaying of the first data relating to the predetermined second keyword is prioritized over displaying of the first data relating to the other second keywords; wherein, if a rate of occurrence of a predetermined second keyword in respective predetermined periods is higher than rates of occurrence of other second keywords in the respective predetermined periods, the processing circuitry determines the display manner such that displaying of the first data relating to the predetermined second keyword is prioritized over displaying of the first data relating to the other second keywords. These limitations further recite condition for displaying data and are recited at high level of generality and merely adds the words apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception , or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite same additional elements as independent claims, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 5-6 recites wherein, if the respective pieces of first data are collectively displayed on a same screen, the processing circuitry determines the display manner such that the first data relating to the predetermined second keyword is positioned on a left of or above the first data relating to the other second keywords on the screen; wherein, if displays of the pieces of first data are switched from one to another on a same screen, the processing circuitry determines the display manner such that the first data relating to the predetermined second keyword is displayed on a first screen and the first data relating to the other second keywords is displayed on a second screen following the first screen. These limitations further recite condition for displaying data and are recited at high level of generality and merely adds the words apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception , or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite same additional elements as independent claims, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 7-8, 11-12 recites wherein the processing circuitry causes the respective pieces of first data to be displayed on a display in the determined display manner; wherein the multiple first keywords include names of the multiple articles or services, measurement values determined to be abnormal for the multiple articles or services, and dates of occurrence of abnormality of the measurement values, and the multiple second keywords include the measurement values; the display object is a data name, a file name, a column name or table name of a database, a uniform resource identifier, or a file path. the display format is a type of media or a type of files, and the type of media includes a graph, a table, a text, a motion image, an image, and a voice. and the type of files includes a file format, a MIME type, an identifier, and an extension. These limitations further recite condition for displaying data and are recited at high level of generality and merely adds the words apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception , or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite same additional elements as independent claims, and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims do not integrate into a practical application. As such, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application, but rather, the recitation of any additional element amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The dependent claims also 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 elements are merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment. These limitations do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05d. Thus, the claims do not add significantly more to an abstract idea. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See (Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2020/0380074 A1) in view of Watanabe (US 2021/0134032 A1), further in view of Ueda (JP 2006293656 A1)
Regarding Claims 1, 9 and 10. Li discloses the troubleshooting support apparatus/method/medium comprising processing circuitry (Abstract lines 1-3 methods for trending issue identification in text streams. A method for improving resolution of a trending issue identified in a set of text streams includes presenting a user interface of an application that is being executed by a computing device, [0024] accurately detect trending customer support issues and/or technical support issues as they arise in text streams to escalate issues to the proper custom support/technical support group and/or reducing the time used to resolve the issues by the custom support/technical support group of the entities. ) configured to:
Li discloses acquire multiple pieces of document data which describe content of a problem relating to multiple articles or services ([0005] identifying a trending issue in input data including a set of text streams, the method can include: (1) receiving the input data including the set of text streams [0026] when users experience an issue using a software application and/or a computing device of an entity, the user may compose a text stream in an electronic message (e.g., email) and transmit the email to the entity. The issue may be any suitable issue relating to the software application, the computing device, and/or the entity. For example, the issue may relate to the software application being down);
Li discloses extract, from the multiple pieces of document data, multiple first keywords relating to the multiple articles or services together with attribute information ([0005] (2) performing textual analysis on the set of text streams to determine a trending issue presented in the set of text streams, [0030] The remaining set of preprocessed text streams may be parsed using natural language processing techniques to extract keywords and the number of occurrences of the keywords in the text streams over time. The term “keywords” may refer to a word and/or a phrase that is determined to be of interest. The determination of which keywords to extract may be preset based on knowledge of domain experts);
Li discloses record, in a memory, the multiple first keywords in association with the attribute information.([0030] when a set of text streams are received or obtained, the set of text streams may be input into one or more machine learning models that are trained to identify patterns corresponding to malicious activity or intent and to filter out any text streams that include the identified patterns. These filtered out text streams may be stored in a data store for review.. weights (attribute) may be assigned to the keywords based on their relevance to certain issues and the importance of those certain issues. For example, “down” as a keyword may receive a strong weight because the keyword “down” may relate to an issue of a software application or service being down, which may be a relatively important issue., [0031] Historical data of the number of occurrences of the keywords in the text streams over a certain time period (e.g., a 24 hour period) may be used to generate a respective time series for each of the keywords. The time series may represent (e.g., in a line chart, bar chart, table, etc.) the number of occurrences of a respective keyword at each timestamp over the certain time period. Fig 4 #406-400 monitored keywords, [0059]Fig 5 # 500 shows keywords and associated emails and rate of occurrence);
Li discloses determine, a first display of first data relating to each of the multiple second keywords with a rate of occurrence ([0031] the clusters of text streams may be ranked based on weights assigned to the anomalous keywords present in each of the clusters of text streams. For example, if a first text stream in a cluster includes more occurrences of an anomalous keyword having a strong weight than a second text stream in the cluster, then the first text stream may be ranked higher in the cluster. Moreover, if a first cluster of text streams includes anomalous keywords with stronger weights than a second cluster of text streams, then the first cluster may be ranked higher than the second cluster., [0032] a highest ranking cluster of text streams may be determined to represent the trending issue and a notification may be transmitted to a computing device to provide an alert pertaining to the trending issue. Notifications pertaining to the trending issues represented by a certain number (e.g., top five, top ten, top 20, etc.) of the highest ranking clusters of text streams may be transmitted to the computing device to provide the alerts pertaining to the trending issues, [0060] the significance of the anomalous keyword may be determined based on one or more factors related to a weight assigned to the anomalous keyword, the number of occurrences of the anomalous keyword in the text streams 114, the number of associated emails in which the anomalous keyword is included, and/or the average occurrence of the anomalous keyword over a period of time. Fig 6 shows interface with keywords change and region [0070] Based on the time series 900 and 902, the keywords “Unavailable” and “App Store” share a common trait because they both share an increase 904 and 906 in the number of occurrences at or around the same time. As such, the keywords “Unavailable” and “App Store” may be determined to be anomalous keywords. A visual prompt 908 may be presented that states “What happened on 7/3? “App Store” and “Unavailable” are correlated based on an increase in number of occurrences for both at the same timestamp.”).
Li teaches wherein the processing circuitry causes the respective pieces of first data to be displayed on a display. ([0062] the anomalous keywords “country”, “region” and “try” are emphasized (e.g., underlined) in the text stream 114 presented in section 502. Presenting the anomalous keyword details and the relevant text stream contents including one or more of the anomalous keywords together on the same user interface 110 may enable quick determination of the importance of trending issues 504., [0063] The user interface 110 may present a line chart 600 for the number of occurrences of “change” in the text streams 114 over the given period of time, and a line chart 602 for the number of occurrences of “region” in the text streams 114 over the given period of time, [0055] the trending issues may be identified in the text streams automatically using textual analysis including at least comparing time series of respective keywords to determine if the keywords share a common trait that corresponds to an anomaly. For example, a visual representation 304 may be presented on the user interface 110 for top products that are referenced in identified trending issues described in the text streams 114. The top products that are reference in identified trending issues include “App Store” 1335 times, “Smartphone” 517 times, “OS apps” 223 times, and “Media Player” 60 times.)
Li does not specifically teach determine, a first display manner of first data relating to a second keyword with a higher rate of occurrence among the first keywords recorded in the memory; determining a second display manner of first data relating to a second keyword with a lower rate of occurrence among the first keywords recorded in the memory. wherein the first display manner and the second display manner are different in at least one of a display object or a display format, wherein the processing circuitry is further includes causing respective pieces of first data to be displayed on a display in the determined first display manner and the determined second display manner.
Watanabe teaches determine, a first display of first data relating to a second keywords with a higher priority among the first keywords recorded in the memory ([0103] the generator 260 makes the priority of the first image 310 for displaying the manufacturing data Yi having the larger first index value F(Yi) higher than the priority of the first image 310 for displaying the manufacturing data Yi having the smaller first index value F(Yi). In this case, the generator 260 may cause the display device 300 to display the first images 310 side by side from the top in a descending order of priority. Also, the generator 260 may adjust the display form of the display region, or cause the first display region to be highlighted and displayed, with respect to the first image 310 having a high priority. [0049] The generator determines an amount of information and a priority of an image showing results of analyzing the manufacturing data and the manufacturing condition data displayed on the display device 300 on the basis of the index values of the manufacturing data and the manufacturing condition data derived by the analyzer 240, generates visualized data according to the amount of information and the priority (rate of occurrence) that have been determined, and outputs the generated visualized data to the display device 300., [0093]-[0094] The generator 260 generates visualized data by including information of a first analysis result display region (hereinafter referred to as a “first display region”) in the display device 300 that displays a first image and a second analysis result display region (hereinafter referred to as a “second display region”) in the display device 300 that displays a second image in the visualized data. The generator 260 determines an amount of information to be displayed in each of first display regions as the first image and its display priority on the basis of the first index value F(Yi) and determines an amount of information to be displayed in each of second display regions as the second image and its display priority on the basis of the second index value F(Yi, Cj)., [0179]-[0180] and Fig 37 tree structure or tab structure display, [0103] the generator 260 makes the priority of the first image 310 for displaying the manufacturing data Yi having the larger first index value F(Yi) higher than the priority of the first image 310 for displaying the manufacturing data Yi having the smaller first index value F(Yi). In this case, the generator 260 may cause the display device 300 to display the first images 310 side by side from the top in a descending order of priority. Also, the generator 260 may adjust the display form of the display region, or cause the first display region to be highlighted and displayed, with respect to the first image 310 having a high priority. ) determining a second display of first data relating to a second keyword with a lower priority among the first keywords recorded in the memory. wherein the first display and the second display are different in at least one of a display object or a display format ([0103] the generator 260 may make the first image 310 having a low priority inconspicuous by thinning the first display region. The generator 260 may set a threshold value for a level of a priority and may make a determination on the basis of whether the priority is higher or lower than or equal to the threshold value or the like. Also, at the time of displaying on the plurality of first images 310, the generator 260 determines a display position of the first image 310 in accordance with the priority of the first image 310 and causes the first image 310 having a high priority to be displayed at a position easier to see than the first image 310 having a low priority. FIG. 14, the first-stage first image 310A has a higher priority than the second-stage first image 310B and the generator 260 causes the first-stage first image 310A to be displayed at a position easier to see for the user in an upper portion than the second-stage first image 310B.) wherein the method further includes causing respective pieces of first data to be displayed on a display in the determined first display and the determined second display. ([0103] FIG. 14, the first-stage first image 310A has a higher priority than the second-stage first image 310B and the generator 260 causes the first-stage first image 310A to be displayed at a position easier to see for the user in an upper portion than the second-stage first image 310B
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included teach determine, a first display of first data relating to a second keyword with a higher priority among the first keywords recorded in the memory; determining a second display of first data relating to a second keyword with a lower priority among the first keywords recorded in the memory. wherein the first display and the second display are different in at least one of a display object or a display format, wherein the processing circuitry is further includes causing respective pieces of first data to be displayed on a display in the determined first display and the determined second display., as disclosed by Watanabe in the system disclosed by Li, for the motivation of providing a method of detecting abnormalities in products at early stage and to provide a graph drawing device that represents in a graph information abnormalities of products in a plurality of arrangements such as tab structure or tree structure ([0002], [0179]-[0180] Watanabe) and adjusting the display form of the display region, or cause the first display region to be highlighted and displayed based on priority ([0103 Watanabe)
Li/Watanabe do not specifically teach determine a first display manner….with higher rate of occurrence…. second display manner with a lower rate of occurrence
Ueda teaches determine, a first display manner of first data relating to a second keyword with a higher rate of occurrence among the first keywords recorded in the memory; (Page 5 para 2 For each extracted document, words included in the document are extracted, and the number of appearances (rate of occurrence) of each word is counted. A list of appearance words is created in the same manner as in the keyword extraction process, and the importance is set for each extracted word (importance determination is the same as in the keyword extraction process). A keyword table of the extracted document is created with the word having the highest importance as the keyword and the words having the second to sixth importance as the sub-keywords 1 to 5. Page 5 para 4 In the relationship diagram display, a graphic (hereinafter document icon) indicating the extracted document is displayed (FIG. 10). The document icon is displayed larger for a document with a higher evaluation score and smaller for a document with a lower evaluation score (display manner). The relationship between documents is indicated by connecting document icons with a line. The related keyword having the highest fitness is displayed on the line, and indicates which keyword is associated with the document. The thicker the line connecting document icons, the higher the relationship between documents, and the thinner the line, the lower the relationship between documents.) determining a second display manner of first data relating to a second keyword with a lower rate of occurrence among the first keywords recorded in the memory. wherein the first display manner and the second display manner are different in at least one of a display object or a display format (Page 5 para 4 In the relationship diagram display, a graphic (hereinafter document icon) indicating the extracted document is displayed (FIG. 10). The document icon is displayed larger for a document with a higher evaluation score (first display manner) and smaller for a document with a lower evaluation score (second display manner). The relationship between documents is indicated by connecting document icons with a line. The related keyword having the highest fitness is displayed on the line, and indicates which keyword is associated with the document. The thicker the line connecting document icons, the higher the relationship between documents, and the thinner the line, the lower the relationship between documents) wherein the processing circuitry is further includes causing respective pieces of first data to be displayed on a display in the determined first display manner and the determined second display manner (Page 5 para 4 In the relationship diagram display, a graphic (hereinafter document icon) indicating the extracted document is displayed (FIG. 10). The document icon is displayed larger for a document with a higher evaluation score and smaller for a document with a lower evaluation score (display manner). The relationship between documents is indicated by connecting document icons with a line. The related keyword having the highest fitness is displayed on the line, and indicates which keyword is associated with the document. The thicker the line connecting document icons, the higher the relationship between documents, and the thinner the line, the lower the relationship between documents)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included teach determine, a first display manner of first data relating to a second keyword with a higher rate of occurrence; determining a second display manner of first data relating to a second keyword with a lower rate of occurrence; wherein the first display manner and the second display manner are different in at least one of a display object or a display format, wherein the processing circuitry is further includes causing respective pieces of first data to be displayed on a display in the determined first display manner and the determined second display manner., as disclosed by Ueda in the system disclosed by Li/Watanabe, for the motivation of providing a method of the matching keyword ranking depending on whether the keyword or sub-keyword matches including the highest when it matches the keyword, and the lowest when it matches the fifth place of the sub-keyword and calculating these values for all the extracted documents and obtaining the evaluation points, it is possible to determine which document is closest to the specified keyword. (Page 4 para 5 Ueda)
Regarding Claim 2. Li as modified by Watanabe/Ueda teaches the troubleshooting support apparatus according to Claim 1,
Li teaches wherein, if a rate of occurrence of a predetermined second keyword is higher than rates of occurrence of other second keywords, the processing circuitry determines the display manner such that displaying of the first data relating to the predetermined second keyword is prioritized over displaying of the first data relating to the other second keywords. ([0032] a highest ranking cluster of text streams may be determined to represent the trending issue and a notification may be transmitted to a computing device to provide an alert pertaining to the trending issue. In some embodiments, there may be more than one cluster of text streams that each relate to a different trending issue and notifications pertaining to the trending issues represented by a certain number (e.g., top five, top ten, top 20, etc.) of the highest ranking clusters of text streams may be transmitted to the computing device to provide the alerts pertaining to the trending issues., Fig 3 #304-308 and [0055] the top trending issues that are identified most frequently in the overall volume 300 (rate of occurrence) of text streams 114 for the particular period of time may be presented on the user interface 110.the trending issues may be identified in the text streams automatically using textual analysis including at least comparing time series of respective keywords to determine if the keywords share a common trait that corresponds to an anomaly. For example, a visual representation 304 may be presented on the user interface 110 for top products that are referenced in identified trending issues described in the text streams 114. The top products that are reference in identified trending issues include “App Store” 1335 times, “Smartphone” 517 times, “OS apps” 223 times, and “Media Player” 60 times.)
Regarding Claim 3. Li as modified by Watanabe/Ueda teaches the troubleshooting support apparatus according to Claim 1,
Li teaches wherein, if a rate of occurrence of a predetermined second keyword in a predetermined period is higher than rates of occurrence of other second keywords in the predetermined period, the processing circuitry determines the display manner such that displaying of the first data relating to the predetermined second keyword is prioritized over displaying of the first data relating to the other second keywords. (Fig 3 #304-308 updated 1 minute ago, 304-308 gets updated frequently and display changes based on update and [0055] the top trending issues that are identified most frequently in the overall volume 300 (rate of occurrence) of text streams 114 for the particular period of time (predetermined period) may be presented on the user interface 110.the trending issues may be identified in the text streams automatically using textual analysis including at least comparing time series of respective keywords to determine if the keywords share a common trait that corresponds to an anomaly. For example, a visual representation 304 may be presented on the user interface 110 for top products that are referenced in identified trending issues described in the text streams 114. The top products that are reference in identified trending issues include “App Store” 1335 times, “Smartphone” 517 times, “OS apps” 223 times, and “Media Player” 60 times, [0057] If the common keywords are used more than the first threshold amount of times within the threshold period of time, the common keyword may be assigned a need attention status 404. If the common keywords are used more than a second threshold amount of times, higher than the first threshold amount of times, within the threshold period of time, the common keywords may be assigned a warning status 406.)
Regarding Claim 4. Li as modified by Watanabe/Ueda teaches the troubleshooting support apparatus according to Claim 1,
Li teaches wherein, if a rate of occurrence of a predetermined second keyword in respective predetermined periods is higher than rates of occurrence of other second keywords in the respective predetermined periods, the processing circuitry determines the display manner such that displaying of the first data relating to the predetermined second keyword is prioritized over displaying of the first data relating to the other second keywords. ( Fig 5 #500, 502 and [0059] the anomalous keywords may be identified in the text streams by comparing time series for each keyword extracted from the text streams 114 to determine whether the keywords share a common trait that corresponds to an anomaly. The user interface 110 includes a section 500 for an anomalous keywords detailed view and a section 502 for relevant text stream contents. The section 500 provides columns for “Significance” which includes values for “Very High”, “High”, “Medium” and/or “Low. The section 500 also includes a column for “Keyword”, “# of associated emails”, “# of occurrence”, “avg. occurrence (prior 3 days)”, and “Actions”. [0060] the significance (priority) of the anomalous keyword may be determined based on one or more factors related to a weight assigned to the anomalous keyword, the number of occurrences of the anomalous keyword in the text streams 114, the number of associated emails in which the anomalous keyword is included, and/or the average occurrence of the anomalous keyword over a period of time.)
Regarding Claim 5. Li as modified by Watanabe/Ueda teaches the troubleshooting support apparatus according to claim 2,
Li teaches wherein, if the respective pieces of first data are collectively displayed on a same screen, the processing circuitry determines the display manner such that the first data relating to the predetermined second keyword is positioned on a left of or above the first data relating to the other second keywords on the screen. (Fig 6 # 604, 606 shows first data related to keyword change to left of keyword region, [0062] the anomalous keywords “country”, “region” and “try” are emphasized (e.g., underlined) in the text stream 114 presented in section 502. Presenting the anomalous keyword details and the relevant text stream contents including one or more of the anomalous keywords together on the same user interface 110 may enable quick determination of the importance of trending issues 504., [0063] The user interface 110 may present a line chart 600 for the number of occurrences of “change” in the text streams 114 over the given period of time, and a line chart 602 for the number of occurrences of “region” in the text streams 114 over the given period of time.)
Regarding Claim 6. Li as modified by Watanabe/Ueda teaches the troubleshooting support apparatus according to claim 2,
Li does not specifically teach wherein, if displays of the pieces of first data are switched from one to another on a same screen, the processing circuitry determines the display manner such that the first data relating to the predetermined second keyword is displayed on a first screen and the first data relating to the other second keywords is displayed on a second screen following the first screen.
Watanabe teaches wherein, if displays of the pieces of first data are switched from one to another on a same screen ([0151] The generator 260 performs switching between ON and OFF of a first detailed image display mode by operating the first detailed display request image 317. When the cursor is aligned with one of the analysis results in the first image 310 when the first detailed image display mode is turned on, the generator 260 causes a first detailed image 318 on which details of the analysis result aligned with the cursor are displayed to be displayed inside the first analysis information image 313. The first detailed image 318 includes an ID of a product, a determination result, a measured value, and the like corresponding to the analysis result.), the processing circuitry determines the display manner such that the first data relating to the predetermined second keyword is displayed on a first screen and the first data relating to the other second keywords is displayed on a second screen following the first screen. ([0179] the second images 320 may be displayed in the first image 310, i.e., the first images 310 and the second images 320 are displayed in a tree structure, but may be displayed in other forms. FIGS. 34 to 36 are diagrams showing examples of an outline of a screen displayed on the display device 300. The first images 310 and the second images 320 may be displayed in a tree structure as shown in FIG. 34 or the first images 310 and the second images 320 may be displayed in a tab structure as shown in FIG. 35. Also, as shown in FIG. 36, the first images 310 and the second images 320 may be displayed in a plurality of arrangements., [0180] FIG. 35, when the first images 310 and the second images 320 are displayed in a tab structure (first screen Tab Y1/second screen Tab Y2), the first image 310 includes a main screen 310M and a tab screen 310T, the second images 320 is displayed in the main screen 310M, and the main screen 310M of any of the plurality of first images 310 may be displayed by operating the tab screen 310T. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included teach wherein, if displays of the pieces of first data are switched from one to another on a same screen, the processing circuitry determines the display manner such that the first data relating to the predetermined second keyword is displayed on a first screen and the first data relating to the other second keywords is displayed on a second screen following the first screen, as disclosed by Watanabe in the system disclosed by Li, for the motivation of providing a method of detecting abnormalities in products at early stage and to provide a graph drawing device that represents in a graph information abnormalities of products in a plurality of arrangements such as tab structure or tree structure ([0002], [0179]-[0180] Watanabe)
Regarding Claim 8. Li as modified by Watanabe/Ueda teaches the troubleshooting support apparatus according to claim 1,
Li teaches wherein the multiple first keywords include names of the multiple articles or services (Fig 6 # 600,604 shows keyword change with email ID, ([0062] the anomalous keywords “country”, “region” and “try” are emphasized (e.g., underlined) in the text stream 114 presented in section 502. Presenting the anomalous keyword details and the relevant text stream contents including one or more of the anomalous keywords together on the same user interface 110 may enable quick determination of the importance of trending issues 504), data of occurrence (Fig 6 # 600 shows date from 7/1-7/4). However, Li does not specifically teach measurement values determined to be abnormal for the multiple articles or services, and dates of occurrence of abnormality of the measurement values, and the multiple second keywords include the measurement values. Li, further teaches if the common keywords are used more than a second threshold amount of times (value), higher than the first threshold amount of times, within the threshold period of time, the common keywords may be assigned a warning status 406. ([0057] and determining significance values such as very high, high ([0059]-[0060] If the result of the division is another number (e.g., greater than 1), then the significance is assigned “Medium”, “High”, or “Very High” based on the degree of variance between the first number and the another number. )
Watanabe teaches measurement values determined to be abnormal for the multiple articles or services ([0057] The first index value F(Yi) in the first embodiment is an index representing the degree of abnormality of the manufacturing data Yi and represents a probability of occurrence of an abnormality or a magnitude of an abnormality. In the first embodiment, an abnormality rate=the number of products determined to be abnormal/the total number of products (D) is used as the first index value F(Yi)., [0058] The first analyzer 242 presets a threshold value for the value of the manufacturing data Yi as a reference for determining that the manufacturing data Yi is abnormal. The first analyzer 242 determines that the manufacturing data Yi, which exceeds the threshold value, is abnormal. Fig 6 abnormality rate ), and dates of occurrence of abnormality of the measurement values ([0053] the condition that the data is acquired (on products manufactured) during one hour or one day may be set to regularly monitor an abnormality in a product group manufactured during a period such as any one hour or any one day. When a time, a date, and the like when each product was processed or inspected are recorded in the manufacturing database, the data acquired by the acquisitor 220 may be product manufacturing data included in a period designated as one hour or one day. Also, a lot number, a lot ID, or the like may be pre-recorded as a number or a string representing a certain period or a unit of a certain number of products in the manufacturing database.), and the multiple second keywords include the measurement values (Fig 14 # 321 primary factor C3, factor C1, #322 index value for primary factor C3 and C1, [0070] The second analyzer 244 combines the manufacturing data {Yi: i=1, . . . , N} and the manufacturing condition data {Cj: j=1, . . . , M} to perform analysis for identifying a primary factor (keywords) of the abnormality.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included teach measurement values determined to be abnormal for the multiple articles or services, and dates of occurrence of abnormality of the measurement values, and the multiple second keywords include the measurement values., as disclosed by Watanabe in the system disclosed by Li, for the motivation of providing a method of detecting abnormalities in products at early stage and to provide a graph drawing device that represents in a graph information abnormalities of products. ([0002] Watanabe)
Regarding Claim 11. (New) Li as modified by Watanabe/Ueda teaches the troubleshooting support apparatus according to claim 1,
Li teaches wherein the display object is a data name, a file name, a column name or table name of a database, a uniform resource identifier, or a file path. ([0059] user interface 110 presenting information pertaining to anomalous keyword usage in text streams 114, in accordance with some embodiments. As discussed herein, the anomalous keywords may be identified in the text streams by comparing time series for each keyword extracted from the text streams 114 to determine whether the keywords share a common trait that corresponds to an anomaly. The user interface 110 includes a section 500 for an anomalous keywords detailed view and a section 502 for relevant text stream contents. The section 500 provides columns for “Significance” which includes values for “Very High”, “High”, “Medium” and/or “Low. The section 500 also includes a column for “Keyword”, “# of associated emails”, “# of occurrence”, “avg. occurrence (prior 3 days)”, and “Actions”.Fig 7 # 700 template viewer shows order ID, refund and corresponding files/email snapshots #702)
Regarding Claim 12. (New) Li as modified by Watanabe/Ueda teaches the troubleshooting support apparatus according to claim 1,
Li does not specifically teach wherein the display format is a type of media or a type of files, and the type of media includes a graph, a table, a text, a motion image, an image, and a voice. and the type of files includes a file format, a MIME type, an identifier, and an extension.
Watanabe teaches wherein the display format is a type of media or a type of files, and the type of media includes a graph, a table, a text, a motion image, an image, and a voice. and the type of files includes a file format, a MIME type, an identifier, and an extension. ([0094] The visualized data may be drawing data for displaying an image on the display device 300 or may have a data format that can be displayed on the display device 300, for example, a data format such as html, xml, or j son., [0089] FIG. 11, the first threshold value TH1 and the second threshold value TH2 are drawn by lines as threshold values for determining the abnormality and a bias rate for a specific manufacturing condition is shown as a broken line graph. Also, the color of the distribution of manufacturing conditions having a large bias is changed and emphasized. , Fig 14 shows identifier Y7 inspection item)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included teach wherein the display format is a type of media or a type of files, and the type of media includes a graph, a table, a text, a motion image, an image, and a voice. and the type of files includes a file format, a MIME type, an identifier, and an extension as disclosed by Watanabe in the system disclosed by Li, for the motivation of providing a method of detecting abnormalities in products at early stage and to provide a graph drawing device that represents in a graph information abnormalities of products. ([0002] Watanabe)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 arguments, examiner has considered all arguments and respectfully disagrees. Applicant on page 9 states that claims provide an improvement to technological environment by automatically and accurately specifying the product data. Examiner notes that the specification and claims provide no details to how the claim set achieves such an improvement to technical environment. MPEP 2106.05(a) recites “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The instant claims are directed to an abstract idea, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the instant claims are only to generic computing components that implement the abstract idea on a computing environment. As such, it can be interpreted that the instant claims only make the abstract idea more efficient, and there are not actual changes/improvements to any computing components. Furthermore, the information handling system is not a specialized computing device as it merely uses generic computing components that execute instructions to perform the abstract idea. Such a device may be programmed to perform any abstract idea, and is not a particular device.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 103 rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Li teaches rate of occurrence of keyword ([0031] Historical data of the number of occurrences of the keywords in the text streams over a certain time period (e.g., a 24 hour period) may be used to generate a respective time series for each of the keywords. Also, Watanabe teaches rate of occurrence/priority for keywords ([0103] generates visualized data according to the amount of information and the priority (rate of occurrence) that have been determined, and outputs the generated visualized data to the display device 300Further, Ueda teaches rate of occurrence of keyword (Page 5 para 2 For each extracted document, words included in the document are extracted, and the number of appearances of each word is counted. A list of appearance words is created in the same manner as in the keyword extraction process, and the importance is set for each extracted word (importance determination is the same as in the keyword extraction process).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chauhan et al. (US 11,132,111 B2) discloses the troubleshooting support apparatus/method/medium comprising processing circuitry (Abstract enable network security analysts and other users to efficiently conduct network security investigations and to produce useful representations of investigation results, Col 7 lines 27-30 the one or more computing devices may include one or more memories that store instructions for implementing the various components described herein, one or more hardware processors.) configured to: acquire multiple pieces of document data which describe content of a problem relating to multiple articles or services (Col 15 lines 45-52 FIG. 5 illustrates an example of raw machine data received from disparate data sources. In this example, a user submits an order (data related to service) for merchandise using a vendor's shopping application program 501 running on the user's system. The order fails to be delivered to the vendor's server due to a resource exception at the destination server which is detected by the middleware code 502 (problem related to service). The user then sends a message to customer support 503 to complain about the order failing to complete. The three systems 501, 502, and 503 are disparate systems that do not have a common logging format., Fig 5 #504-506 document data for customer ID #507); extract, from the multiple pieces of document data, multiple first keywords relating to the multiple articles or services together with attribute information (Col 15 lines 60-67 Using the log data received at one or more indexers 206 from the three systems, the vendor, goodstuff.com, has the unique ability to obtain an insight into user activity, user experience, and system behavior. The search head 210 allows the vendor's administrator to search the log data from the three systems that are stored at the one or more indexers 206 to obtain correlated information and also a visualization of related events via a user interface. The administrator can query the search head 210 for customer ID field(attribute information) value matches across the log data from the three systems that are stored at the one or more indexers 206., Fig 3 # 314 identify keywords in events, Col 6 lines 32-38The system stores the timestamped events in a data store, and enables users to run queries against the stored data to, for example, retrieve events that meet criteria specified in a query, such as containing certain keywords or having specific values in defined fields. Col 13 lines 6-10At blocks 314 and 316, an indexer can optionally generate a keyword index to facilitate fast keyword searching for event data. To build a keyword index, at block 314, the indexer identifies a set of keywords in each event. At block 316, the indexer includes the identified keywords in an index, which associates each stored keyword with reference pointers to events containing that keyword ); record the multiple first keywords in a memory for the respective pieces of attribute information (Col 13 lines 6-10At blocks 314 and 316, an indexer can optionally generate a keyword index to facilitate fast keyword searching for event data. To build a keyword index, at block 314, the indexer identifies a set of keywords in each event. At block 316, the indexer includes the identified keywords in an index, which associates each stored keyword with reference pointers to events containing that keyword , Col 32 lines 48-62 a network security application is configured to store a record of the user interaction in a workflow event log, also referred to as an “actions history,” associated with the particular user. Each workflow event log entry, for example, may indicate information about a type of workflow event that occurred, when the workflow event occurred, which user performed the workflow event, etc. A collection of workflow events may generally represent steps taken by an analyst to investigate one or more network security incidents.);
Riddle (US 20210004706) discloses system derives training change factors for services provided for training product user, priority assigned to training service ticket initiated by training product user, times of service ticket interactions associated with training service ticket, and/or age of training service ticket, and also for times of states of training service ticket.
Arvapally (US 2016/0239847) discloses FIG. 6, once the value is assigned to the normalized text of the support message, the support engine 118 identifies a response message, at 616, based on the value. In so doing, the support engine 118 operates to compute a similarity between the issue raised by the user in the support message and questions/answers already available to the support engine.
Oliner (US 10942960) discloses Triaging models are selectively applied against the notable event instances to produce an enhanced notable event instance representation with modeled results effective to automatically perform or assist in triaging the notable events so they are dispatched in an optimal, effective, and efficient, manner.
Yamahara (US 10,360,605) discloses information to be displayed is displayed by prioritizing the information of targets related to targets with high degrees of interest of the user. (Fig 32)
Nomiyama (US 7,571,383) discloses A retrieval system retrieves document data having content specified by an inputted retrieval statement among a plurality of document data, a concept retrieving section retrieving concepts wherein the retrieval statement concept is a higher or lower layer of the document concept among the plurality of document data, retrieval result output section outputting document data retrieved, as the document data containing content specified by the retrieval statement.
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 SANGEETA BAHL whose telephone number is (571)270-7779. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 4PM.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/SANGEETA BAHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626