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 .
Detail Action
On 11/14/2023, Application 18/509,287 is filed with claims 1-20.
This is Non-Final Action.
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 /mental process without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites the step of:
(2A Analysis)
values assigned to time periods over a window of time, where a value assigned to a time period in the time periods is indicative of a number of processes that were executed by or on behalf of the computer-executable entity with respect to a feature during the time period that were not executed in any previous time period in the window of time;
computing a metric value for the entity based upon the time-series data, where the metric value is indicative of suitability of the behavioral data for provision to a computer-executable model, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites mere instructions to apply an exception (a computing system), with additional elements comprising only insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of:
(2B Analysis)
further where the computer-executable model is trained to identify anomalous behavior of the entity; and based upon the metric value, providing the behavioral data to the computer-executable model, where the computer-executable model generates an output based upon the behavioral data, and further where the output indicates whether the behavioral data is anomalous relative to previously observed behavior of the entity. MPEP 2106.05(d)
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Further, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 2 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 2 recites the additional element of:
(2B Analysis)
where the computer-executable entity is one of a virtual machine or a container. MPEP 2106.05(d)
amount to amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 2 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 3 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 3 recites the additional element of:
(2B Analysis)
where the feature comprises names processes that are executable by the computer-executable entity. MPEP 2106.05(d)
amount to amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 2 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 4 also recites the step of:
(2A Analysis)
second values assigned to the time period over the window of time, where a second value assigned to the time period in the time periods is indicative of a number of second processes that were executed with respect to a second feature of the entity during the time period that were not executed in any previous time period during the window of time, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 4 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 4 recites the additional element of:
(2B Analysis)
where the metric value for the entity is computed based further upon the second time-series data; MPEP 2106.05(d)
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 4 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 5 also recites the step of:
(2A Analysis)
where the behavioral data comprises: an identity of a process executed by the entity in a most recent time period; and a count value that indicates a number of times that the process was executed by the entity in the most recent time period. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 5 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2B Analysis)
Claim 5 does not recites the additional element amount to significant extra-solution activity that indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 6 also recites the step of:
(2A Analysis)
the acts further comprising: comparing the metric value with a threshold, where the behavioral data is provided to the computer-executable model based upon the metric value being above the threshold. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 6 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2B Analysis)
Claim 6 does not recites the additional element amount to significant extra-solution activity that indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 7 also recites the step of:
(2A Analysis)
computing a confidence value for the feature, where the confidence value is indicative of a confidence that a next value for a next time period in the window of time is able to be accurately predicted, where the metric value is based upon the confidence value. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 7 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2B Analysis)
Claim 7 does not recites the additional element amount to significant extra-solution activity that indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 8 also recites the step of:
(2A Analysis)
the computing system of claim 1, where computing the metric value comprises: computing a trend value for the time-series data based upon the values assigned to the time periods, where the metric value is based upon the trend value. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 8 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2B Analysis)
Claim 8 does not recites the additional element amount to significant extra-solution activity that indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 9 also recites the step of:
(2A Analysis)
obtaining an importance value for the feature, where the importance value for the feature is based upon a weight assigned to the feature by the computer-executable model, and further where the metric is computed based upon the importance value. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 9 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2B Analysis)
Claim 9 does not recites the additional element amount to significant extra-solution activity that indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 10 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 10 recites the additional element of:
(2B Analysis)
computing a second metric value for the entity based upon the time-series data, where the second matric value is indicative of applicability of a second computer-executable model with respect to the behavioral data, and further where the second computer-executable model is trained to identify anomalous behavior of the entity; and based upon the second metric value, refraining from providing the behavioral data to the second computer-executable model. MPEP 2106.05(d)
amount to amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 10 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 11 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 11 recites the additional element of:
(2B Analysis)
where the entity comprises multiple virtual machines corresponding to a customer of the cloud computing system. MPEP 2106.05(d)
amount to amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 11 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 12 recites the step of:
(2A Analysis)
computing a likelihood that a next value in the time-series data for a next time period following the time window is able to be correctly predicted, where the likelihood is computed based upon the values assigned to the time periods; providing the data corresponding to the entity to the computer-executable model based upon the likelihood, where the computer-executable model generates an output based upon the data, and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites mere instructions to apply an exception (a computing system), with additional elements comprising only insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 12 recites the additional element of:
(2B Analysis)
obtaining time-series data for a feature of the entity, where the feature comprises multiple processes that are executable by the entity, and further where the time-series data comprises: values assigned to time periods within a time window, where a value in the values is representative of a number of processes in the processes that were executed by the entity a first time within the time window; … further where an alert is transmitted to a computing device associated with the entity based upon the output of the computer-executable model. MPEP 2106.05(d)
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Further, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 13 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 13 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 13 recites the additional element of:
(2B Analysis)
where the alert indicates that the data corresponding to the entity includes an anomaly. MPEP 2106.05(d)
amount to amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 13 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 14 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 14 also recites the step of:
(2A Analysis)
where the data corresponding to the entity is provided to the computer-executable model based further upon the trend value. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 14 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 14 recites the additional element of:
(2B Analysis)
a trend value based upon the values assigned to the time periods within the time window, MPEP 2106.05(d)
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 4 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 15 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 15 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 15 recites the additional element of:
(2B Analysis)
where the computer-executable entity is a virtual machine executing in the cloud computing environment. MPEP 2106.05(d)
amount to amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 15 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 16 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 16 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 16 recites the additional element of:
(2B Analysis)
where the computer-executable entity is a container executing in the cloud computing environment. MPEP 2106.05(d)
amount to amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 16 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 17 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 17 also recites the step of:
(2A Analysis)
where a second value in the second values is representative of a second number of second processes in the multiple second processes that were executed by the entity a first time within the time window, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 17 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 17 recites the additional element of:
(2B Analysis)
obtaining second time-series data for a second feature of the entity, where the second feature comprises second multiple processes that are executed by the entity, and further where the second time-series data comprises: second values assigned to the time periods within the time window…. where the data corresponding to the entity is provided to the computer-executable model based upon the second time-series data. MPEP 2106.05(d)
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 17 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 18 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 18 also recites the step of:
(2A Analysis)
computing a second likelihood that a next value in the second time-series data for the next time period following the time window is able to be correctly predicted, where the second likelihood is computed based upon the second values assigned to the time periods, and further where the data corresponding to the entity is provided to the computer-executable model based upon the second likelihood. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 18 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2B Analysis)
Claim 18 does not recites the additional element amount to significant extra-solution activity that indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 19 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 19 also recites the step of:
(2A Analysis)
where the importance value for the feature is indicative of a weight assigned to the feature by the computer-executable model, and further where the data corresponding to the entity is provided to the computer-executable model based upon the importance value. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 19 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2B Analysis)
Claim 19 does not recites the additional element amount to significant extra-solution activity that indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 20 is directed to 1 comprise the steps which the at least a computer-readable storage medium platform of the system of claim 1 are configured to perform. Claim 20 recites the same limitations as claim 1, respectively; therefore, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a computer-readable storage medium without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1. See above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10-13, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Bahenatapia US Publication 2020/0364607.
18/509,287
Bahenatapia US Publication 2020/0364607
Claim 1
A computing system comprising: a processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising:
BahenaTapia p0043; p0118;
obtaining time-series data for a computer-executable entity that is being executed in a cloud computing environment, where the time-series data is based upon behavioral data for the entity, and further where the time-series data comprises:
values assigned to time periods over a window of time, where a value assigned to a time period in the time periods is indicative of a number of processes that were executed by or on behalf of the computer-executable entity with respect to a feature during the time period that were not executed in any previous time period in the window of time;
BahenaTapia p0028-p0049;
BahenaTapia p0095;
BahenaTapia p0028-p0047;
BahenaTapia teaches older time window; p0076
computing a metric value for the entity based upon the time-series data, where the metric value is indicative of suitability of the behavioral data for provision to a computer-executable model, and further where the computer-executable model is trained to identify anomalous behavior of the entity; and
BahenaTapia Fig. 5; p0032-p0137;
based upon the metric value, providing the behavioral data to the computer-executable model, where the computer-executable model generates an output based upon the behavioral data, and further where the output indicates whether the behavioral data is anomalous relative to previously observed behavior of the entity.
BahenaTapia p0028-p0049;
BahenaTapia p0095;
BahenaTapia p0028-p0047;
BahenaTapia teaches older time window; p0076;
BahenaTapia Fig. 5; p0032-p0137;
Claim 2
The computing system of claim 1,
where the computer-executable entity is one of a virtual machine or a container.
BahenaTapia p0118, p120;
Claim 6
The computing system of claim 1, the acts further comprising: comparing the metric value with a threshold, where the behavioral data is provided to the computer-executable model based upon the metric value being above the threshold.
BahenaTapia p0099, p0100;
Claim 10
The computing system of claim 1, the acts further comprising: computing a second metric value for the entity based upon the time-series data, where the second matric value is indicative of applicability of a second computer-executable model with respect to the behavioral data, and further where the second computer-executable model is trained to identify anomalous behavior of the entity; and based upon the second metric value, refraining from providing the behavioral data to the second computer-executable model.
BahenaTapia p0058
Claim 11
The computing system of claim 1, where the entity comprises multiple virtual machines corresponding to a customer of the cloud computing system.
BahenaTapia p0120-p0127
Claim 12
A method for determining whether to provide data to a computer-executable model that is trained to identify anomalies in data corresponding to an entity that is executing in a cloud computing environment, the method comprising:
BahenaTapia p0003, p0035, p0118, p0120;
obtaining time-series data for a feature of the entity, where the feature comprises multiple processes that are executable by the entity, and further where the time-series data comprises:
BahenaTapia p0095
values assigned to time periods within a time window, where a value in the values is representative of a number of processes in the processes that were executed by the entity a first time within the time window;
BahenaTapia p0031, p0059;
computing a likelihood that a next value in the time-series data for a next time period following the time window is able to be correctly predicted, where the likelihood is computed based upon the values assigned to the time periods;
BahenaTapia p0052, p0031
providing the data corresponding to the entity to the computer-executable model based upon the likelihood, where the computer-executable model generates an output based upon the data, and further where an alert is transmitted to a computing device associated with the entity based upon the output of the computer-executable model.
BahenaTapia p0052-58, p0034-p0037;
Claim 13
The method of claim 12, where the alert indicates that the data corresponding to the entity includes an anomaly.
BahenaTapia p0037; p0099-p0101
Claim 16
The method of claim 12, where the computer-executable entity is a container executing in the cloud computing environment.
BahenaTapia p0118
As per claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2. See rejection above.
As per claim 20, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. See rejection above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 5, 9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahenatapia US Publication 2020/0364607 in view Muddu US 2019/0342311.
18/509,287
Bahenatapia US Publication 2020/0364607 in view Muddu US 2019/0342311
Claim 3
The computing system of claim 1, where the feature comprises names processes that are executable by the computer-executable entity.
BahenaTapia p0043; p0118;
Muddu p0510, p0458;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Muddu’s teaching with method of BahenaTapia in order to allow processes to be identified.
Claim 5
The computing system of claim 1, where the behavioral data comprises:
an identity of a process executed by the entity in a most recent time period; and
a count value that indicates a number of times that the process was executed by the entity in the most recent time period.
Mudda p0207, p0195-p0196
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Muddu’s teaching with method of BahenaTapia in order to allow system to keep track most relevant process.
Claim 9
The computing system of claim 1, the acts further comprising: obtaining an importance value for the feature, where the importance value for the feature is based upon a weight assigned to the feature by the computer-executable model, and further where the metric is computed based upon the importance value.
Mudda p0583-p0589;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Muddu’s teaching with method of BahenaTapia in order to allow system to keep track most important process.
As per claim 19, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9. See rejection above.
Claims 4, 7, 8, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahenatapia US Publication 2020/0364607 in view Poghosyan US 2020/0065213.
18/509,287
Bahenatapia US Publication 2020/0364607 in view of Poghosyan US 2020/0065213
Claim 4
The computing system of claim 1, the acts further comprising:
obtaining second time-series data for the computer-executable entity, where the second time-series data comprises:
BahenaTapia p0043; p0118;
second values assigned to the time period over the window of time, where a second value assigned to the time period in the time periods is indicative of a number of second processes that were executed with respect to a second feature of the entity during the time period that were not executed in any previous time period during the window of time, where the metric value for the entity is computed based further upon the second time-series data.
Poghosyan p0005, p0066-0116;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Muddu’s teaching with method of BahenaTapia in order to allow system to keep track most important process.
Claim 7
the computing system of claim 1, where computing the metric value comprises: computing a confidence value for the feature, where the confidence value is indicative of a confidence that a next value for a next time period in the window of time is able to be accurately predicted, where the metric value is based upon the confidence value.
BahenaTapia p0035;
Poghosyan teaches confidence value p0005,0076, Fig. 20a, 20b 27.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Poghosyan’s teaching with method of BahenaTapia in order to allow system to include the confidence metric.
Claim 8
where computing the metric value comprises: computing a trend value for the time-series data based upon the values assigned to the time periods, where the metric value is based upon the trend value.
Poghosyan p0084-p0089;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Poghosyan’s teaching with method of BahenaTapia in order to allow system to include the trend value.
As per claim 14, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8. See rejection above.
As per claim 17, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4. See rejection above.
18/509,287
Bahenatapia US Publication 2020/0364607 in view of Poghosyan US 2020/0065213
Claim 18
The method of claim 17, further comprising:
BahenaTapia p0043; p0118;
computing a second likelihood that a next value in the second time-series data for the next time period following the time window is able to be correctly predicted, where the second likelihood is computed based upon the second values assigned to the time periods, and further where the data corresponding to the entity is provided to the computer-executable model based upon the second likelihood.
Poghosyan p0005, Poghosyan p0005, p0066-0116;
Conclusion
Here is a list of references relates to system that detect anomalies:
Salunke US Publication 2019/0373007: Unsupervised method for baselining and anomaly detection in time-series data for enterprise systems.
Kulkarni US Publication 2020/0336499: Anomaly and Mode Inference From Time Series Data.
Thibaux US Publication 2008/0208526: Strategies For Identifying Anomalies In Time-Series Data.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENG KE whose telephone number is (571)272-4062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-5:00.
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, Kevin Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
PENG KE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/PENG KE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194