FINAL ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1 and 3-7 have been amended to include structure and therefore do not need to be interpreted under U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 7/09/2025, with respect to claims 1 and 3-8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the AND/OR logic in relation to causes amended into claim 1 was not found in search or considered obvious. The rejections of claims 1 and 3-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 7/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claimed invention is still directed to a mental process without a sufficient integration into a practical application. Determining whether an incident is caused by a system failure or a cyberattack is a mental process, judgement or opinion. It is not directed to a particular problem or solution, only the intended use of determining a type of incident. The additional elements are general mathematical calculations which aid in the mental process.
Claims 1, 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1 and 3-7 are directed to a system, and claim 8 is directed to a method which are eligible statutory categories
Step 2A Prong 1: Recited Judicial Exceptions
Claim 1 recites determining log information necessary for cause identification, detecting an incident event and analyzing a cause of an incident event. These are mental processes. Calculating cause likelihood scores is a mathematical concept
Claim 3 recites calculating a degree of relevance, also a mathematical concept.
Claim 4 recites determining based off of a simple observation that the score is above or below a value, a mental process.
Claim 5 recites the causality graph which associates information, a mental process.
Claim 8 recites determining log information necessary for cause identification, detecting and analyzing, mental processes.
Step 2A prong 2: Integration into a practical application
Claim 1 recites a causality graph in which a relationship between an incident event and a cause thereof is associated in advance, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Detecting an incident event in a target device are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception to generic computer hardware. Extracting the causality graph of an associated type for the incident is mere data gathering. Collecting the determined necessary device log information is also data gathering. Outputting the cause identified and making logical connections between causes are also insignificant extra solution activity.
Claim 3 recites searching for the presence of a log which is also extra solution activity.
Claim 5 recites information of a department capable of performing determination, which are mere instructions to apply the exception.
Claim 6 recites wherein the generated causality graph is held by the causality graph holding unit, which is data output
Claim 7 recites wherein the output unit outputs the causality graph and necessary log information, also data output.
Claim 8 recites the same predetermined relationship, detecting in a target device, data extraction, collection and output as claim 1.
Step 2B: Significantly more or amounting to an inventive concept
Claim 1 recites a causality graph holding unit, device log information holding unit, information determination processing unit, cause analysis processing unit and output unit. These are interpreted as generic computer components recited at a high level which do not amount to an inventive concept.
Claim 6 recites a causality graph generation unit, which is a generic computer.
Claim 7 recites the data output being the analysis status. The data being considered as status doesn’t change it being mere data output, and there aren’t any additional limitations.
Claim 8 recites no additional limitations that claim 1 doesn’t cover.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN KEVIN MCNAMARA whose telephone number is (703)756-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEAN KEVIN MCNAMARA/Examiner, Art Unit 2113
/PHILIP GUYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113