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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Referring to claim 11, and consequently its dependent claims, “the computing device” lacks antecedent basis. It is understood to refer to “the computing system”.
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 1-9, 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, if no statutory category rejection was given above, then the claims have been determined to have a statutory category.
At step 2a, prong one, referring to claim 1, applicant claims executing a service, detecting a defect including an error associated with the service, collecting by software agents problem analysis data during execution of the service, determining a priority value based on various data, determining to include the problem analysis data in a debug data file based on the priority value, storing (on the computing system) the problem analysis data in the debug data file, sending the file to a server, receiving from the server information on a resolution, and performing steps of the resolution, as shown in claim 1, herein recited, “A method performed by a computing system, the method comprising: executing a service provided by the computing system; detecting a defect of the computing system, wherein the defect includes an error associated with the service provided by the computing system; collecting, by software agents during execution of the service, problem analysis data associated with the defect of the computing system; determining a priority value of the problem analysis data based on usage data of previous problem analysis data associated with the defect, a size of the problem analysis data, and a confidence score associated with the previous problem analysis data; determining, based on the priority value, to include the problem analysis data in a debug data file having a limited file size, wherein the debug data file is stored on the computing system; storing the problem analysis data in the debug data file based on determining to include the problem analysis data in the debug data file; sending the debug data file from the computing system to a server; receiving, from the server, information regarding a resolution of the defect determined based on the debug data file; and performing steps of the resolution to correct the defect based on the information regarding the resolution.” Claims 11 and 16 are treated as similar.
The limitations of detecting, determining, and determining , as crafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. That is, nothing in these claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, possibly with the aid pen and paper. For example, these steps perform steps of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
At step 2a, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim additionally recites a generic computer (inclusive of executing a service and performing operations by “software agents”), collecting data during execution of a service, storing data, sending and receiving data for the purpose of remote diagnostics, and performing steps of a resolution. Additionally and alternatively, steps of execution of a service, detecting a defect for the service, and collecting (and storing) data associated with the defect describe the concept of software error monitoring. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The computer is recited at a high level of generality, including the concepts of the execution of a service and software agents that perform a function, both treated as generally describing the ability of a generic computer to generically process instructions. The computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in step 2a prong one, such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The execution, monitoring, and collection/storage limitations are performed for necessary data gathering and output and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
The limitation of storage is recited a high level of generality and is insignificant and extra-solution. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The limitations of receiving data and transmitting an alert are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
The limitation of performing a resolution provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer and insignificant application. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (g). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. The performance is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the resolution functions and does not include details about how the correction is accomplished.
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the mental processes a person may perform, using the computer components as a tool. As outlined above, these additional elements, in this combination merely use a generic computer to perform acts of data gathering for the purpose of remote analysis and then generically acts on the result of analysis. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At 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 a generic computer (including executing a service and software agents), collecting data, software error monitoring, storing data, and sending and receiving data for the purpose of remote diagnostics, and performing a resolution amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
With respect to the generic computer, the courts have found limitations directed to generic computers, including instructions performed by a generic computer (e.g. a service or an agent), recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d), for example TLI Communications, Flook, Alice Corp, and Versata.
With respect to collecting data, this is also well understood, routine, and conventional. See for example US 20010047510 A1 paragraph 124, US 20100042975 A1 paragraph 4, US 20120221949 A1 paragraph 3, US 20130263093 A1 paragraph 23, US 20150143182 A1 paragraph 2, US 20200218635 A1 paragraph 30, US 20220308982 A1 paragraph 7, US 20220413994 A1 paragraph 4.
With respect to software error monitoring, this is also well understood, routine, and conventional. See for example US 20120036397 A1 paragraph 2, US 20070016911 A1 paragraph 8-9, US 20020091779 A1 paragraph 543, US 20230281068 A1 paragraph 1-2, US 20170039100 A1 paragraph 3, US 20080288830 A1 paragraph 2, US 20110154372 A1 paragraph 30.
With respect to storing data this is also well understood, routine, and conventional. See for example MPEP 2106.05(d),(g).
With respect to the limitation of sending and receiving data, this is recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
With respect to remote diagnostics, this is also well understood, routine, and conventional. See for example US 20060123302 A1 paragraph 3, US 20040078721 A1 paragraph 5, US 20050283661 A1 paragraph 6, US 20100266106 A1 paragraph 5, US 20030187999 A1 paragraph 5, US 20030204855 A1 paragraph 5, and US 20080235264 A1 paragraph 2.
With respect to performing steps of the resolution this represents insignificant extra-solution activity, equivalent to "apply it", that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception as the implementation operation is an insignificant application of the abstract mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. Further, implementing is recited at a high level of generality. Implementing is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (g)).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole (see above), the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Further referring to claims 2-5, these merely further perform steps of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
Further referring to claims 6-9, these merely further describe data.
Further referring to claims 12-15 and 17-20, see rejection of claims 2-5 above.
Further referring to claim 21, this merely describes a consequence of performing the process claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 10) that a human cannot perform collection by software agents, selectively include data into a file of limited size, transmit data to a server, or receive resolution from a server, or correct the defect based on the resolution, firstly, Applicant should note how the claim was delineated by abstract and additional limitations, noting how they were addressed above. Further regarding “limited” size, one must recognize there are limits to anything. However, even had Applicant actually specified a limit, this would appear to merely indicate an aspect of well-understood, routine, and conventional storage.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 10-11) that the claim as a whole integrates, see above. Reiterating, the claim performs insignificant extrasolution steps of data gathering, data transmission/remote diagnosis, and generic resolution. These do not integrate the concept of prioritization into practical application.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 11-12) that the invention addresses problems of latency and bandwidth, as described in paragraphs 9-12 of the specification, at best the issues of latency and bandwidth are addressed through abstracts steps of data prioritization. The abstract concept of prioritization for diagnosis is itself made more efficient, which operates on an insignificant extrasolution network. Had the network been wholly absent, it is still the process of diagnosis that is improved through prioritization.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 12) that this is a specific technical solution for a computer-specific problem of limited size, examiner asserts that this is instead a process improvement regarding a technological environment. Size limits are similarly present in any discourse, be they paper, computer storage, or attention. No specific limit, tied to any particular technological component, is even claimed here. However, even had Applicant claimed this, this would appear to merely be an aspect of a well-understood, routine, and conventional component.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 12) examiner’s characterization of additional elements is incomplete as it oversimplifies into isolated pieces, see rejection above. Reiterated, the additional elements merely serve to gather data for analysis, perform this analysis remotely, and then performs a high level resolution in response to the analysis. The additional elements, in the order presented, merely perform typical, generic remote diagnostics. Including the identified abstract mental steps (page 12-13) merely serves to highlight the insignificant, extra-solution nature of these additional elements. That is, data gets prioritized for the analysis.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 13) that the file size is not incidental, Applicant has not even claimed what this limited size is, besides the fact that having a limit to the size of anything is virtually, if not necessarily, inherent. Even assuming there were some specified, component-tied limit to the claim, this does no more than introduce a known, generic aspect to a generic computer component. What’s left, practically, is simply the prioritization of data for consideration. Even without a size limit, the limitation of data for consideration could be preferable as it could reduce the analytical burden or remove extraneous information. Notably, these are (abstract mental) analytical considerations regardless of technological environment. That there is a reduction in memory or bandwidth requirement follows on from the reduced analytical burden and would similarly apply for any reduction in data requirements for any technology that uses data. Here, memory/storage and network/bandwidth are simply insignificantly extra-solution to the abstract idea of prioritization.
As an analogy, if I figured out a faster, shorter route from point a to point b, is this an abstract mental idea? What if I looked at a map or surroundings to “prioritize” the key points of the journey to a friend to then ask that friend about what the best route was to take, and then drove the route that my friend told me about? Would having a faster, shorter route also save wear and tear on my car, the road, and save gas? Would having a shorter conversation (thanks to the prioritized information) save time, cellular phone minutes, or voice over IP bandwidth?
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 13) that there is claimed a specific technological arrangement for prioritized transmission, see above regarding networks and the reception/transmission of data being insignificant and extra-solution.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 13-14) that the ordered combination does not append routine activity, see above rejection and response regarding combination.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 14) that the performance of the resolution is not insignificant and extrasolution as it ends the described workflow, to the extent that it is claimed, it merely describes a generic step of performance with no specific steps as to how or what. Further, see Applicant’s argument above pointing to paragraphs 9-12 where the argued point of the invention is to save space and bandwidth.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 14) that the file solves the problem of bandwidth saturation and is rooted in computer network technology, see above regarding networks and the reception/transmission of data being insignificant and extra-solution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL L CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-3656. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays 8 am to 5 pm.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at (571)272-0631. 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.
/GABRIEL CHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights