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 .
Response to Amendment
The previous 35 USC 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn in light of the claim amendments.
New 35 USC 101 rejections are present in light of the claim amendments. The claim is directed to abstract mental processes and mathematics. The claim recites abstract concepts such as observation, evaluations, judgements, and predictions and utilizes mathematical models to realize the concepts. Implementing these concepts on a computer system does not add meaningful limitation on the judicial exception but instead uses the computer as a tool to implement the exception.
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, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “[a] system comprising: a memory storing processor-executable program code; and at least one processing unit to execute the processor-executable program code to cause the system to: receive time-series data of a metric for each of a plurality of computer servers; for each computer server, determine a representative value of the metric based on the time-series data of the metric for the computer server; for each computer server, determine a fluctuation value of the metric based on the time-series data of the metric for the computer server; determine a standard value of the metric based on the determined representative values; determine a standard fluctuation value based on the determined fluctuation values; for each computer server, determine a difference value based on a difference between the standard value and the representative value for the computer server and a difference between the standard fluctuation value and the fluctuation value for the computer server; and identify one or more anomalous computer servers based on the difference values.”
determine, for each computer server, whether or not the computer server is anomalous based on the difference values determined for the computer server; for each computer server determined as anomalous, label the time-series data of the computer server with a first classification; for each computer server not determined as anomalous, label the time-series data of the computer server with a second classification; train a classification model using supervised learning based on the labeled time-series data; receive second time-series data of the metric for each of the plurality of computer servers; and determine a classification for each computer server indicating whether or not the second time-series data for each computer server is indicative of anomalous behavior by inputting the second time-series data for each computer server to the trained classification model
The limitation of “for each computer server, determine a representative value of the metric based on the time-series data of the metric for the computer server,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “for each computer server, determine a fluctuation value of the metric based on the time-series data of the metric for the computer server,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “determine a standard value of the metric based on the determined representative values,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “determine a standard fluctuation value based on the determined fluctuation values,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “network” language, “parsing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually parsing logs. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “for each computer server, determine a difference value based on a difference between the standard value and the representative value for the computer server and a difference between the standard fluctuation value and the fluctuation value for the computer server,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “network” language, “generating… and providing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually generating and providing a root cause report. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “determine, for each computer server, whether or not the computer server is anomalous based on the difference values determined for the computer server,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “network” language, “parsing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually parsing logs. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “for each computer server determined as anomalous, label the time-series data of the computer server with a first classification,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “network” language, “parsing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually parsing logs. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “for each computer server not determined as anomalous, label the time-series data of the computer server with a second classification,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “network” language, “parsing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually parsing logs. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “train a classification model using supervised learning based on the labeled time-series data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “network” language, “parsing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually parsing logs. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “determine a classification for each computer server indicating whether or not the second time-series data for each computer server is indicative of anomalous behavior by inputting the second time-series data for each computer server to the trained classification model,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “network” language, “parsing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually parsing logs. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “memory,” “processor,” and “computer” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “memory,” “processor,” and “computer” language, “receive… determine… and identify” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper receiving data, determining values, and identifying anomalies. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “memory,” “processor,” and “computer” to enact receiving, determining, and identifying. The computer in all steps is 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.
Additionally, the claim recites, “receive time-series data of a metric for each of a plurality of computer servers.” Extra solution activity.
The claim recites, “receive second time-series data of the metric for each of the plurality of computer servers.” Extra solution activity.
Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the receiving, determining, and identifying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites “[a] system according to Claim 2, wherein determination of the standard value of the metric based on the determined representative values comprises: modification of the representative values to normalize the distribution of the representative values; and determination of the standard value of the metric based on the modified representative values.”
The limitation of “modification of the representative values to normalize the distribution of the representative values,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “determination of the standard value of the metric based on the modified representative values,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “memory,” “processor,” and “computer” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “memory,” “processor,” and “computer” language, “modification… and determination” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper modifying and determining values. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “memory,” “processor,” and “computer” to enact modifying and determining. The computer in all steps is 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. Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the modifying and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites “[t]he system according to Claim 3, wherein determination of the fluctuation value based on the determined fluctuation values comprises: modification of the fluctuation values to normalize the distribution of the fluctuation values; and determination of the standard fluctuation value based on the modified fluctuation values.”
The limitation of “modification of the fluctuation values to normalize the distribution of the fluctuation values,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “determination of the standard fluctuation value based on the modified fluctuation values,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “memory,” “processor,” and “computer” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “memory,” “processor,” and “computer” language, “modification… and determination” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper modifying and determining values. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “memory,” “processor,” and “computer” to enact modifying and determining. The computer in all steps is 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. Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the modifying and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites “[t]he system according to Claim 1, wherein determination of the standard value of the metric based on the determined representative values comprises: modification of the representative values to normalize the distribution of the representative values; and determination of the standard value of the metric based on the modified representative values.”
The limitation of “modification of the representative values to normalize the distribution of the representative values,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “determination of the standard value of the metric based on the modified representative values,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “memory,” “processor,” and “computer” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “memory,” “processor,” and “computer” language, “modification… and determination” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper modifying and determining values. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “memory,” “processor,” and “computer” to enact modifying and determining. The computer in all steps is 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. Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the modifying and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites “[t]he system according to Claim 5, wherein determination of the fluctuation value based on the determined fluctuation values comprises: modification of the fluctuation values to normalize the distribution of the fluctuation values; and determination of the standard fluctuation value based on the modified fluctuation values.”
The limitation of “modification of the fluctuation values to normalize the distribution of the fluctuation values,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “determination of the standard fluctuation value based on the modified fluctuation values,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “memory,” “processor,” and “computer” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “memory,” “processor,” and “computer” language, “modification… and determination” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper modifying and determining values. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “memory,” “processor,” and “computer” to enact modifying and determining. The computer in all steps is 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. Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the modifying and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites “[t]he system according to Claim 1, wherein determination of the difference value for each entity comprises: normalization of the differences between the standard value and the representative value for the computer server and the differences between the standard fluctuation value and the fluctuation value for the computer server; and determination of the difference value for each entity based on the normalized differences.”
The limitation of “normalization of the differences between the standard value and the representative value for the computer server and the differences between the standard fluctuation value and the fluctuation value for the computer server,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “determination of the difference value for each entity based on the normalized differences,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “memory,” “processor,” and “computer” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “memory,” “processor,” and “computer” language, “normalization… and determination” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper normalizing and determining values. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “memory,” “processor,” and “computer” to enact normalizing and determining. The computer in all steps is 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. Accordingly, this 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the normalizing and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 8 and 10-14 are rejected based on similar rationale given to claims 1 and 3-7, respectively.
Claims 15, 17-19 and 20 are rejected based on similar rationale given to claims 1, 3-5 and 7, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)431-0699. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 A.M.-4:00 P.M..
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, BRYCE P BONZO can be reached at (571)-272-3655. 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.
/JONATHAN D GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113