DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dome et al. (US 2019/0095265, Dome hereafter).
RE claims 1, 19 and 20, Dome discloses a method, non-transitory computer-readable medium and device comprising: a processing system including at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the processing system, cause the processing system to perform operations, the operations comprising: collecting a set of data from a plurality of sensors that is monitoring a system, wherein the plurality of sensors includes sensors of a plurality of different modalities (Paragraphs 50-55 and Figure 6 discloses a predictive failure analysis method performed by one or more processors and storage. Paragraph 52 discloses: “The predictive failure analysis 120 collects, correlates, and accumulates an array of sensor readings (collectively, “sensor data 126” in FIG. 1) for the cloud components 115 and utilizes big data analytics and machine learning to detect abnormal patterns and the root cause(s) thereof.”) detecting an instance of out-of-distribution data in the set of data by providing the set of data as an input to a machine learning model that generates as an output an indicator that the instance of out-of-distribution data is out-of-distribution with respect to the set of data; identifying a root cause for the instance of out-of-distribution data (Paragraph 52 discloses: “The predictive failure analysis 120 collects, correlates, and accumulates an array of sensor readings (collectively, “sensor data 126” in FIG. 1) for the cloud components 115 and utilizes big data analytics and machine learning to detect abnormal patterns and the root cause(s) thereof.”. Examiner equates “out-of-distribution data” to what Dome discloses as identification of “abnormal patterns”); and initiating an action to remediate the root cause of the instance of out-of-distribution data (Paragraphs 52-54 discloses detection and “root cause” determination of “abnormal patterns” as well as taking proactive and preventative adjustment based on the findings of the predictive failure analysis.)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dome in view of Nair et al. (US 11, 876, 858, Nair hereafter).
RE claim 2, Dome discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Dome further discloses wherein the system comprises one of: a communications network (Figure 13).
Dome does not explicitly disclose wherein the system comprises one of: an autonomous vehicle, a piece of artwork, a physical location at which a crowd is gathered, or a piece of software that is under development.
However, Nair teaches wherein the system comprises one of: an autonomous vehicle, a piece of artwork, a physical location at which a crowd is gathered, or a piece of software that is under development (Table 1 in column 20, “Example use case scenarios and corresponding compute requirements and parameters for various AI and ML applications at the edge.”. These usage scenarios include AL/ML applications utilizing sensors deployed for use in autonomous vehicles, healthcare such as wearable monitors, industrial and media/entertainment which includes security cameras and motion detectors).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dome with the teachings of Nair in order to provide for anomaly detection across a variety of usage scenarios.
RE claim 3, Dome discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Dome further discloses wherein the plurality of sensors includes at least two of: a network sensor and a temperature sensor (Paragraph 36, sensor data is collected from “cloud component(s)” and can include “hardware sensor readings, environmental sensor readings, and/or utilization sensor readings”. Paragraph 28 discloses “environmental temperature of a critical application”).
Dome does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of sensors includes at least two of: an imaging sensor, an audio sensor, a weather sensor, a medical sensor, or a biometric sensor.
However Nail further teaches wherein the plurality of sensors includes: an imaging sensor, an audio sensor, a weather sensor, a medical sensor, or a biometric sensor (Table 1 in column 20, “Example use case scenarios and corresponding compute requirements and parameters for various AI and ML applications at the edge.”. These usage scenarios include AL/ML applications utilizing sensors deployed for use in autonomous vehicles, healthcare such as wearable monitors, industrial and media/entertainment which includes security cameras and motion detectors).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dome with the teachings of Nair in order to provide for anomaly detection across a variety of usage scenarios and associated sensor types.
RE claim 4, Dome discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Dome does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors is mounted in a fixed location.
However, Nair teaches wherein at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors is mounted in a fixed location (Table 1 in column 20, “Example use case scenarios and corresponding compute requirements and parameters for various AI and ML applications at the edge.”. These usage scenarios include AL/ML applications utilizing sensors deployed for use in autonomous vehicles, healthcare such as wearable monitors, industrial and media/entertainment which includes security cameras and motion detectors. The sensors listed are a combination of fixed, wearable and those attached to vehicles).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dome with the teachings of Nair in order to provide for anomaly detection across a variety of usage scenarios and associated sensor types.
RE claim 5, Dome discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Dome does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors is mounted to a moving object
However, Nair teaches wherein at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors is mounted to a moving object (Table 1 in column 20, “Example use case scenarios and corresponding compute requirements and parameters for various AI and ML applications at the edge.”. These usage scenarios include AL/ML applications utilizing sensors deployed for use in autonomous vehicles, healthcare such as wearable monitors, industrial and media/entertainment which includes security cameras and motion detectors. The sensors listed are a combination of fixed, wearable and those attached to vehicles).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dome with the teachings of Nair in order to provide for anomaly detection across a variety of usage scenarios and associated sensor types.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dome in view of Schell et al. (US 2024/0403662, Schell hereafter).
RE claim 6, Dome discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Dome does not explicitly disclose wherein a value of the instance of out-of-distribution data deviates from a mean value for the set of data by more than a predefined threshold value (Paragraphs 18 teaches “the univariate machine learning models are statistical models and predict a potential anomaly when any one input feature (such as any single monitored metric of a configuration item) exceeds a configured threshold, such as one, two, or three standard deviations (or another threshold value) from the mean value or another baseline value of an input feature.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dome with the teachings of Schell since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 7, Dome in view of Schell discloses the method of claim 6 as set forth above. Note that Schell further teaches wherein the predefined threshold value is different for each modality of data that is collected by the plurality of sensors (Paragraphs 18 teaches “the univariate machine learning models are statistical models and predict a potential anomaly when any one input feature (such as any single monitored metric of a configuration item) exceeds a configured threshold, such as one, two, or three standard deviations (or another threshold value) from the mean value or another baseline value of an input feature.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dome with the teachings of Schell since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dome in view of Hatch et al. (US 2014/0058615, Hatch hereafter).
RE claim 8, Dome discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Dome does not explicitly disclose wherein a value of the instance of out-of-distribution data deviates from a median value for the set of data by more than a predefined threshold value.
However, Hatch teaches wherein a value of the instance of out-of-distribution data deviates from a median value for the set of data by more than a predefined threshold value (Paragraph 15 teaches “calculating a set of deviations corresponding to the set of mean values relative to a median value of the set of mean values; (g) determining if anomalous behavior exists based on the set of deviations; (h) calculating a characteristic value representative of the set of deviations; (i) calculating a set of normalized deviations for the calculated characteristic value for each of the machines in the fleet; and (j) comparing the set of normalized deviations to a predefined threshold.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dome with the teachings of Hatch since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dome in view of in view of Elad et al. (US 7,480,640, Elad hereafter) in view of Tung et al. (US 2017/0206680) and further in view of Klimov et al. (US 2021/0081816, Klimov hereafter).
RE claim 9, Dome discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Dome does not explicitly disclose wherein the machine learning model comprises at least one of: a density-based algorithm, a reconstruction-based algorithm, a classification-based algorithm, or a distance-based algorithm.
However, Elad teaches a density-based algorithm and a distance-based algorithm (Claim 40 teaches a plurality of machine-learning methods. Among them are “density-based clustering” and “distance-based outlier detection”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dome with the teachings of Elad since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Dome in view of Elad does not explicitly disclose a reconstruction-based algorithm or a classification-based algorithm.
However, Tung teaches a reconstruction-based algorithm (Paragraph 28 teaches “For example, a rule can be to use a reconstruction with specific settings for a patient with a high weight. In another embodiment, the AI engine 6 uses a Bayesian network that codifies expert knowledge of reconstruction algorithms or workflows are deployed…)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dome in view of Elad with the teachings of Tung since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Dome in view of Elad and further in view of Tung does not explicitly disclose a classification-based algorithm.
However, Klimov teaches a classification-based algorithm (Paragraph 30 teaches “For classification-based calibrations, the machine learning algorithm may comprise linear or nonlinear machine learning classifiers, including classifiers based on least squares, nearest-neighbour methods, linear discriminant analysis, quadratic discriminant analysis, logistic regression, support vector machines or neural networks.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dome in view of Hatch and further in view of Tung with the teachings of Klimov since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dome in view of Arditi (US 2019/0147331).
RE claim 10, Dome discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Dome does not explicitly disclose wherein the set of data is transferred into a set of latent representations after the collecting, but prior to the detecting.
However, Arditi teaches wherein the set of data is transferred into a set of latent representations after the collecting, but prior to the detecting (Paragraph 28 teaches: “In alternative embodiments, the CNN 450 may be configured as multiple discrete neural networks, with each discrete neural network receiving and processing a different type of sensor data.”, and “In embodiments where multiple discrete neural networks are used, the machine-learning model may be configured to pool, concatenate, and/or aggregate the outputs of those networks to form the latent representation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dome with the teachings of Arditi since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dome in view of Gupta et al. (US 11,816,550, Gupta hereafter).
RE claim 11, Dome discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Dome does not explicitly disclose wherein the instance of out-of-distribution data is assigned a score, wherein the score comprises an indication as to how closely the instance of out-of-distribution data fits a distribution of the set of data (Column 5 lines, 59-67, teaches outlier detection wherein “a kNN detector may be used for outlier prediction model 144. In kNN, for any data point, the distance to its kth nearest neighbor may be viewed as the outlying score. In an example embodiment, there are three kNN detectors: a) “Largest,” which uses the distance of the kth neighbor as the outlier score, b) “Mean,” which uses the average of all k neighbors as the outlier score, and c) “Median,” which uses the median of the distance to k neighbors as the outlier score.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dome with the teachings of Gupta since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 12, Dome in view of Gupta discloses the method of claim 11 as set forth above. Note that Gupta further teaches wherein the score is proportional to a distance between the score and a mean score for the set of data (Column 5 lines, 59-67, teaches outlier detection wherein “a kNN detector may be used for outlier prediction model 144. In kNN, for any data point, the distance to its kth nearest neighbor may be viewed as the outlying score. In an example embodiment, there are three kNN detectors: a) “Largest,” which uses the distance of the kth neighbor as the outlier score, b) “Mean,” which uses the average of all k neighbors as the outlier score, and c) “Median,” which uses the median of the distance to k neighbors as the outlier score.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dome with the teachings of Gupta since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 13, Dome in view of Gupta discloses the method of claim 11 as set forth above. Note that Gupta further teaches wherein the score is proportional to a distance between the score and a median score for the set of data (Column 5 lines, 59-67, teaches outlier detection wherein “a kNN detector may be used for outlier prediction model 144. In kNN, for any data point, the distance to its kth nearest neighbor may be viewed as the outlying score. In an example embodiment, there are three kNN detectors: a) “Largest,” which uses the distance of the kth neighbor as the outlier score, b) “Mean,” which uses the average of all k neighbors as the outlier score, and c) “Median,” which uses the median of the distance to k neighbors as the outlier score.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dome with the teachings of Gupta since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dome in view of Givental et al. (US 2021/0281592, Givental hereafter).
RE claim 14, Dome discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Dome does not explicitly disclose wherein the identifying is performed using a supervised machine learning technique in which a human operator labels instances of out-of-distribution data in a set of training data with root causes.
However, Givental teaches wherein the identifying is performed using a supervised machine learning technique in which a human operator labels instances of out-of-distribution data in a set of training data with root causes (Paragraph 18 teaches: “While machine learning based anomaly detection mechanism may be implemented, in order to achieve high detection accuracy, supervised machine learning algorithms still need a large amount of effort from the human security analysts to manually label historical computer system logs and potential threats for up-front model training, i.e. for generation of the training data.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dome with the teachings of Givental since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 15, Dome discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Dome does not explicitly disclose augmenting, by the processing system, a set of training data used to train the machine learning model with the instance of out-of-distribution data (Paragraph 21 teaches: “The human security analyst response is stored in a training data database along with the unlabeled input log data for use as training data for training an anomaly detection machine learning model, i.e. performing supervised machine learning of an anomaly detection machine learning model.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dome with the teachings of Givental since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 16, Dome in view of Givental discloses the method of claim 15 as set forth above. Note that Givental further teaches wherein the instance of out-of-distribution data is labeled as out-of-distribution before being added to the set of training data (Paragraph 18 teaches: “While machine learning based anomaly detection mechanism may be implemented, in order to achieve high detection accuracy, supervised machine learning algorithms still need a large amount of effort from the human security analysts to manually label historical computer system logs and potential threats for up-front model training, i.e. for generation of the training data.”. Paragraph 21 teaches: “The human security analyst response is stored in a training data database along with the unlabeled input log data for use as training data for training an anomaly detection machine learning model, i.e. performing supervised machine learning of an anomaly detection machine learning model.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dome with the teachings of Givental since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 17, Dome discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Dome does not explicitly disclose detecting, by the processing system, a data shift in the set of data; and retraining, by the processing system in response to the detecting the data shift, the machine learning model using the set of data augmented with the instance of out-of-distribution data (Paragraph 18 teaches: “While machine learning based anomaly detection mechanism may be implemented, in order to achieve high detection accuracy, supervised machine learning algorithms still need a large amount of effort from the human security analysts to manually label historical computer system logs and potential threats for up-front model training, i.e. for generation of the training data.”. Paragraph 21 teaches: “The human security analyst response is stored in a training data database along with the unlabeled input log data for use as training data for training an anomaly detection machine learning model, i.e. performing supervised machine learning of an anomaly detection machine learning model.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dome with the teachings of Givental since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 18, Dome in view of Givental discloses the method of claim 17 as set forth above. Note that Givental further teaches wherein the set of data is further augmented, prior to the retraining, with additional instances of data that were collected after a last training of the machine learning model (Paragraph 18 teaches: “While machine learning based anomaly detection mechanism may be implemented, in order to achieve high detection accuracy, supervised machine learning algorithms still need a large amount of effort from the human security analysts to manually label historical computer system logs and potential threats for up-front model training, i.e. for generation of the training data.”. Paragraph 21 teaches: “The human security analyst response is stored in a training data database along with the unlabeled input log data for use as training data for training an anomaly detection machine learning model, i.e. performing supervised machine learning of an anomaly detection machine learning model.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Dome with the teachings of Givental since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/James P Duffy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461