Detailed Action
This action is in response to application filed on 11/30/2023.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 11/30/2023 does not fully comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.98(b) because the at least one of the listed publications identified as “non-patent literature documents” fails to identify and/or incorrectly identifies at least one of the following, as required in 37 CFR 1.98(b)(5):
1. publisher;
2. author (if any);
3. title;
4. relevant pages of the publication;
5. publication date; and
6. place of publication.
More specifically, one or more NPL listing fails to list publication date.
It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 11/30/2023 are accepted.
Claim Objections
The examiner suggests amending claims in the following manner for clarification purposes.
Claim 1, lines 2-3:
“… receiving, by a computer, a configuration file associated with a set of systems…”
Claim 20, lines 5-6:
“… program instructions to receive a configuration file associated with a of systems…”
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a computer, a configuration file associated with the set of systems, wherein the received configuration file includes information associated with a configuration of the set of systems used for an execution of a workload;
retrieving, by the computer, event data associated with a set of events occurring during the execution of the workload using the set of systems;
determining, by the computer, a first set of parameters from first event data associated with a first event of the set of events, wherein the determined first set of parameters is associated with a first system of the set of systems and comprises information associated with a current status of the first system;
assigning, by the computer, an output label to a first workload termination parameter based on the determined first set of parameters and a presence of first configuration data associated with the first system within the received configuration file; and
storing, by the computer, the assigned output label to the first workload termination parameter in memory.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely,
Mental processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper (see, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942, hereinafter “PEG”).
Mathematical Concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations.
For instance, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper perform a method comprising: mentally determining a first set of parameters from first event data associated with a first event of the set of events, wherein the determined first set of parameters is associated with a first system of the set of systems and comprises information associated with a current status of the first system; mentally and/or with aid paper/pen assigning an output label to a first workload termination parameter based on the determined first set of parameters and a presence of first configuration data associated with the first system within the received configuration file; and mentally and/or via pen/paper recording the assigned output label to the first workload termination parameter.
.
Per prong 2, Step 2A, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above, are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. For instance,
“receiving, by a computer, a configuration file associated with the set of systems, wherein the received configuration file includes information associated with a configuration of the set of systems used for an execution of a workload; retrieving, by the computer, event data associated with a set of events occurring during the execution of the workload using the set of systems… storing, by the computer” are mere data gathering/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g)
“Computer-implemented … by computer [and] storing, by the computer” are merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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)
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results and does not sufficiently tie any limitations or combination of limitation to any improvement (if any) to the functionality of the electronic device or achieving improved technical results.
Per Step 2B, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above, are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). . For instance,
“receiving, by a computer, a configuration file associated with the set of systems, wherein the received configuration file includes information associated with a configuration of the set of systems used for an execution of a workload; retrieving, by the computer, event data associated with a set of events occurring during the execution of the workload using the set of systems… storing, by the computer” are mere data gathering/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d)
“Computer-implemented … by computer [and] storing, by the computer” are merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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)
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 15, and 20 are system and medium claims corresponding to method claim 1 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 15, and 20 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1.
Dependent 2-14, and 16-19 claims when considered individually or in combination per steps as noted above are rejected under the same rational as set forth above for claims 1, 15, and 20, and the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. In particular,
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the determined first set of parameters are determined based on an application of a first natural language processing (NLP) model of a set of NLP models on the first event data, and wherein the set of NLP models are associated with the set of systems.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites further comprising: determining, by the computer, the presence of the first configuration data associated with the first system within the received configuration file; and determining, by the computer, the assigned output label of a first value to the first workload termination parameter further based on the determined presence of the first configuration data associated with the first system within the received configuration file..
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites further comprising: determining, by the computer, an absence of first configuration data associated with the first system within the received configuration file; and determining, by the computer, the assigned output label of a second value to the first workload termination parameter further based on the determined absence of the first configuration data associated with the first system within the received configuration file..
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites further comprising: determining, by the computer, a count of concurrent occurrences of first content in the first event data; comparing, by the computer, the determined count of concurrent occurrences of the first content with a pre-determined count threshold; and determining, by the computer, the assigned output label of the first workload termination parameter based on the comparison..
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites further comprising: calculating, by the computer, a time period from a first timestamp associated with a first occurrence of concurrent occurrences of first content present in the first event data until a current timestamp; comparing, by the computer, the calculated time period with a pre-determined time period threshold; and determining, by the computer, the assigned output label of the first workload termination parameter based on the comparison.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mathematical Concepts (e.g. calculations) and Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites further comprising: determining, by the computer, a value of the assigned output label to the first workload termination parameter; comparing, by the computer, the determined value with a first value; and initiating, by the computer, the execution of the workload on a second system of the set of systems is based on the comparison.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites further comprising: terminating, by the computer, the execution of the workload on the first system based on the assigned output label to the first workload termination parameter, wherein the output label is of a first value; and outputting, by the computer, a failure message indicating the termination of the execution of the workload on the first system due to a presence of at least one fault in the first system.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites further comprising: determining, by the computer, one or more reasons associated with the assigned output label of a first value to the first workload termination parameter based on an analysis of the first event data; and outputting, by the computer, the determined one or more reasons, wherein the determined one or more reasons are determined from the first event data.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the determined one or more reasons are determined based on an application of a second NLP model of a set of NLP models on the first event date.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the set of systems are hosted on a cloud network.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the set of systems comprises at least one of a processor system, a graphics processor system, a file system, and a memory system.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites further comprising determining, by the computer, the assigned output label of the first workload termination parameter based on an application of a machine learning (ML) model on the determined first set of parameters and the received configuration file.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the configuration file is written in a mark-up language, and wherein the mark-up language is selected from the group consisting of a yet another markup language (YAML), a hypertext markup language (HTML), an extensible markup language (XML), a JavaScript object notation (JSON), a standard generalized markup language (SGML), and an extensible hypertext markup language (XHTML).
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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(d, f, g, h).
As per claims 16-19:
Claims 16-19 are system claims corresponding to method claims 2-4, and 12, and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 16-19 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claims 2-4, and 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the above noted objections/rejections are overcome via amendments and/or arguments. Reasons for allowance will be held in abeyance until all matters in the prosecution are closed by.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
WORKLOAD IDENTIFICATION
DOCUMENT ID
US 20140244643 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2014-08-28
Abstract
An embodiment of the invention provides an apparatus and method for classifying a workload of a computing entity. In an embodiment, the computing entity samples a plurality of values for a plurality of parameters of the workload. Based on the plurality of values of each parameter, the computing entity determines a parameter from the plurality of parameters that the computing entity's response time is dependent on. Here, the computing entity's response time is indicative of a time required by the computing entity to respond to a service request from the workload. Further, based on the identified significant parameter, the computing entity classifies the workload of the computing entity by selecting a workload classification from a plurality of predefined workload classifications.
Method And Apparatus For Processing Test Execution Logs To Detremine Error Locations And Error Types
DOCUMENT ID
US 20210383170 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2021-12-09
Abstract
A method of processing test execution logs to determine error location and source includes creating a set of training examples based on previously processed test execution logs, clustering the training examples into a set of clusters using an unsupervised learning process, and using training examples of each cluster to train a respective supervised learning process to label data where each generated cluster is used as a class/label to identify the type of errors in the test execution log. The labeled data is then processed by supervised learning processes, specifically a classification algorithm. Once the classification model is built it is used to predict the type of the errors in future/unseen test execution logs. In some embodiments, the unsupervised learning process is a density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise clustering application, and the supervised learning processes are random forest deep neural networks.
SYSTEM, METHOD, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR AUTOMATICALLY GENERATING TRAINING DATA FOR ANALYZING A NEW CONFIGURATION OF A COMMUNICATION NETWORK
DOCUMENT ID
US 20190280918 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2019-09-12
Abstract
A system, method, and computer program product are provided for training an AI-based network management system, in accordance with one embodiment. In use, log data and first network configuration data are received for a first configuration of a communication network. Additionally, second network configuration data is received for a second configuration of the communication network. Further, simulated log data is produced for the second configuration of the communication network, based on the log data and the second network configuration data.
See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MUSTAFA A AMIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights