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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 1
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a device.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“…compute a … model difference corresponding to the test script by comparing the pre-execution … model and the post-execution YANG model; and record the …model difference in a training dataset stored on a machine learning computing system.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere 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 additional element of “A network device comprising: one or more processing units; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processing units, cause the one or more processing units to:capture a pre-execution YANG model before executing a test script; capture a post-execution YANG model after executing the test script;”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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.
Step 2B: 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea 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. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a device.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere 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 additional element of “wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the one or more processing units to map a test script endpoint of the test script to the YANG model difference.,”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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.
Step 2B: 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 using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea 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. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a device.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere 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 additional element of “wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the one or more processing units to record the test script endpoint and a mapping between the test script endpoint and the YANG model difference in the training dataset.”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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.
Step 2B: 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 using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea 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. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a device.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere 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 additional element of “wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the one or more processing units to parse a configuration output of a network management protocol; and the pre-execution YANG model and the post-execution YANG model each comprises a configuration of the network device.”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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.
Step 2B: 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea 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. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a device.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere 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 additional element of “wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the one or more processing units to parse a state output of a network management protocol; and the pre-execution YANG model and the post-execution YANG model each comprises a state of the network device.”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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.
Regarding claim 6
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a system.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere 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 additional element of “wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the one or more processing units to parse a state output of a network management protocol; and the pre-execution YANG model and the post-execution YANG model each comprises a state of the network device.”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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.
Step 2B: 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea 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. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a system.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere 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 additional element of “wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the one or more processing units to parse a state output of a network management protocol; and the pre-execution YANG model and the post-execution YANG model each comprises a state of the network device.”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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.
Step 2B: 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea 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. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a system.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein the training dataset further comprises a test script endpoint and a mapping between the test script endpoint and the YANG model difference.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere 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 additional element of “YANG model” as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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.
Step 2B: 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea 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. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a system.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere 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 additional element of “wherein tokenization is performed upon a test script endpoint to output a test script endpoint token, and is performed upon a YANG model difference to output a YANG model difference token..”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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.
Step 2B: 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea 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. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a system.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein semantic labeling causes at least one test script endpoint token to be labeled as a changeable numerical value or as a changeable string value, and causes at least one … difference token to be labeled as a changeable numerical value or as a changeable string value.”
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere 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 additional element of “YANG model as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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.
Step 2B: 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea 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. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a system.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere 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 additional element of “wherein the computer- executable instructions further cause the one or more processing units to insert a test script endpoint token into a first array, and insert a YANG model difference token into a second array.as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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.
Step 2B: 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea 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. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a system.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere 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 additional element of “wherein the learning model comprises a sequence-to-sequence model, the sequence-to-sequence model comprising an encoder and a decoder.as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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.
Step 2B: 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea 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. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a system.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere 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 additional element of “wherein the encoder and the decoder respectively comprise recurrent neural networks.as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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.
Step 2B: 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea 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. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a system.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere 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 additional element of “wherein the encoder comprises an encoder long short-term memory ("LSTM") network and the decoder comprises a decoder LSTM network.” as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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.
Step 2B: 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea 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. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a system.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere 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 additional element of “wherein the encoder comprises an encoder transformer network and the decoder comprises a decoder transformer network” as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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.
Step 2B: 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea 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. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“…wherein the …model difference compares a pre-execution … model captured before executing a test script and a post-execution … model captured after executing the test script…”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere 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 additional element of “A method comprising: capturing, by a network device, a YANG model of at least one of a configuration of the network device according to a network management protocol and state of the network device according to the network management protocol; recording, on storage of a machine learning computing system, a YANG model difference in a training dataset… ; and inputting, by the machine learning computing system, the training dataset into a learning model during a training process wherein a set of learned weights converge” as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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.
Step 2B: 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea 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. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere 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 additional element of “further comprising recording, by the network device, a test script endpoint and a mapping between the test script endpoint and the YANG model difference in the training dataset.as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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.
Step 2B: 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea 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. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere 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 additional element of “further comprising performing, by the machine learning computing system, tokenization, semantic labeling, and vectorization upon the training dataset.as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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.
Step 2B: 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea 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. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere 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 additional element of “further comprising receiving, by the machine learning computing system as input, an endpoint feature vector corresponding to a tokenized test script endpoint, and outputting, by the machine learning computing system based on the set of learned weights, a difference feature vector corresponding to a tokenized YANG model differenceas drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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.
Step 2B: 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea 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. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20
Step 1 – Is the claimed invention directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? – Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere 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 additional element of “further comprising inputting, by the machine learning computing system, the training dataset into the learning model during a warm-start training process based on the set of learned weights.” as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts 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.
Step 2B: 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea 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. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2022/0239547 A1) in view of Vasseur et al. (US Pat No. 10680889 B2).
Regarding claim 1
Wang teaches a network device comprising: one or more processing units; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processing units, (para [0227] “As shown in FIG. 23, an embodiment of this application provides a network device 1000. The network device 1000 shown in FIG. 23 is configured to perform operations in the foregoing network device management method. The network device 1000 includes a memory 1001, a processor 1002, and an interface 1003. The memory 1001, the processor 1002, and the interface 1003 are connected through a bus 1004.”)
cause the one or more processing units to: capture a pre-execution YANG model before executing a test script; (Para [0012] “In an example embodiment, the second instruction further carries a command-line interface (CLI) script file. The script file is used to convert the YANG module in the target YANG package into a CLI script.”)
capture a post-execution YANG model after executing the test script; (Para [0013] “In an example embodiment, the processing instruction further includes a third instruction. The third instruction includes the identifier of the target YANG package. The third instruction is used to instruct to query a YANG package that has a dependency relationship with the target YANG package.”)
Wang does not teach compute a YANG model difference corresponding to the test script by comparing the pre-execution YANG model and the post-execution YANG model; and record the YANG model difference in a training dataset stored on a machine learning computing system.
Vasseur teaches compute a …model difference corresponding to the test script by comparing the pre-execution …model and the post-execution YANG model; and record the YANG model difference in a training dataset stored on a machine learning computing system. (Col 16 lines 19-24 “in another hybrid embodiment, degradation analyzer 510 may define a new metric: SameAP_Difference(i)=y_c(i)−y_t(i), which measures the difference in the number of resets before and after. The effect of configuration change for an AP-I is decided after examining both ITE(i) and SameAP_Difference(i). The above methodology describes how the effect of one configuration parameter (e.g., WLC software version) on performance can be computed. However, in reality, a configuration of network devices typically consists of multiple parameters. In some embodiments, degradation analyzer 510 can capture the cause of the performance change by using machine learning and data mining to isolate configuration parameters that are affect most of devices which have experienced performance degradation. For example, consider a configuration with two parameters (version, channelWidth). Assume that version can take two values: 8.3.104.61 or 8.4.1.242. Similarly, highChannelWidth can take three parameters: 20, 40 and 80. The network administrator has the ability to set any possible valid combination of for the above parameters.”)
Wang and Vasseur are analogous art because they are both directed to computer system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combined YANG Module management system of Wang with Network configuration analysis using machine learning of Vasseur.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to quickly “change in the one or more performance indicators that would result from a particular networking device configuration change” as disclosed by (Vasseur para [0043] “The service trains a machine learning model based on the received data indicative of the networking device configuration changes and on the received one or more performance indicators for the one or more networks . The service predicts, using the machine learning model, a change in the one or more performance indicators that would result from a particular networking device configuration change. The service causes the particular networking device configuration change to be made in the network”)
Regarding claim 2
Wang in view of Vasseur The network device of claim 1.
Wang teaches YANG MODEL see para [0012]
Vasseur teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the one or more processing units to map a test script endpoint of the test script to the YANG model difference. (col 13 lines 5-15 “As the state S changes to S′, CDE 506 may compare the distributions P(M|S) and P(M|S′). This can be done in a number of different ways, in various embodiments. In some embodiments, CDE 506 may compare empirical distributions using statistical tests (e.g., using the two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). P-values can be used to determine if two states S and S′ lead to significantly different distributions. ”)
Regarding claim 3
Wang in view of Vasseur The network device of claim 2.
Vasseur further teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the one or more processing units to record the test script endpoint and a mapping between the test script endpoint and the … model difference in the training dataset. col 13 lines 5-15 “As the state S changes to S′, CDE 506 may compare the distributions P(M|S) and P(M|S′). This can be done in a number of different ways, in various embodiments. In some embodiments, CDE 506 may compare empirical distributions using statistical tests (e.g., using the two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). P-values can be used to determine if two states S and S′ lead to significantly different distributions.”)
Regarding claim 4
Wang in view of Vasseur The network device of claim 1.
Wang further teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the one or more processing units to parse a configuration output of a network management protocol; and the pre-execution YANG model and the post-execution YANG model each comprises a configuration of the network device. (“1707: The controller 2 reads a YANG package schema of the new L3VPN package, and delivers a new L3VPN service configuration. [0180] The YANG module management method is described still by using an example. In the example, a first network device is a controller system including a controller 1 and a controller 2, a second network device is a device 3, software packages included in the device 3 include a basic function package and a feature package, to be specific, an L3VPN package, and the controller loads a YANG module data package into the device 3, and deletes a target YANG package. As shown in FIG. 18, the method includes the following processes.”)
Regarding claim 5
Wang in view of Vasseur The network device of claim 1.
Wang further teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the one or more processing units to parse a state output of a network management protocol; and the pre-execution YANG model and the post-execution YANG model each comprises a state of the network device. (Wang “For example, the second feature package delivered by the controller 1 to the device 3 is an L3VPN YANG package, for example, the L3VPN function package and the YANG package schemas are delivered. There may be one or more YANG packages, for example, IETF-L3VPN-pkg, or xxx-L3VPN-pkg. [0153] 908: The device 3 loads and parses a module corresponding to a YANG package of a specified version, and rolls back if an error occurs.”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN C MANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00pm.
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, David Yi can be reached at 5712707519. 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.
/VAN C MANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2126
Prosecution Insights