DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 14, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 8, 14, and 19 “envelop model” should read “envelope model” and “envelop algorithm” should read “envelope algorithm”.
In claim 20 “envelop model” should read “envelope model”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0005], [0065], [0070], [0071], and [0085], “envelop model” should read “envelope model”.
In [0071], “envelop algorithm” should read “envelope algorithm”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 6-9 is 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation ”the matrix profile model”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner assumes that claim 6 should be dependent upon claim 12 to resolve the issue.
Claim 7 recites the limitation ”the seasonal trend decomposition (STD) model”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner assumes that claim 7 should be dependent upon claim 12 to resolve the issue.
Claim 8 recites the limitation ”the elliptic envelop model”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner assumes that claim 8 should be dependent upon claim 12 to resolve the issue.
Claim 9 recites the limitation ”the isolation forest model”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner assumes that claim 9 should be dependent upon claim 12 to resolve the issue.
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 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
As per claim(s) 16-19, they are rejected because the applicant has provided evidence that the applicant intends the term "computer readable storage media" to include non-statutory matter. The applicant describes a “computer-readable storage media” as including open ended language and thus it is reasonable to interpret it to include all possible mediums, including non-statutory mediums (The computer readable storage medium can be a tangible device that can retain and store instructions for use by an instruction execution device. The computer readable storage medium may be, for example, but is not limited to, an electronic storage device, a magnetic storage device, an optical storage device, an electromagnetic storage device, a semiconductor storage device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. A non-exhaustive list of more specific examples of the computer readable storage medium includes the following: a portable computer diskette, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), a static random access memory (SRAM), a portable compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), a digital versatile disk (DVD), a memory stick, a floppy disk, a mechanically encoded device such as punch-cards or raised structures in a groove having instructions recorded thereon, and any suitable combination of the foregoing. A computer readable storage medium or media, as used herein, is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide or other transmission media (e.g., light pulses passing through a fiber-optic cable), or electrical signals transmitted through a wire, [0025]). The words "storage", "tangible", and/or "recording" are insufficient to convey only statutory embodiments to one of ordinary skill in the art absent an explicit and deliberate limiting definition or clear differentiation between storage media and transitory media in the disclosure. As such, the claim(s) is/are drawn to a form of energy. Energy is not one of the four categories of invention and therefore this/these claim(s) is/are not statutory. Energy is not a series of steps or acts and thus is not a process. Energy is not a physical article or object and as such is not a machine or manufacture. Energy is not a combination of substances and therefore not a composition of matter.
The examiner notes that while the specification states that a computer readable storage medium is not to be construed as a transitory signal per se (A computer readable storage medium or media, as used herein, is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide or other transmission media (e.g., light pulses passing through a fiber-optic cable), or electrical signals transmitted through a wire, [0025]), the use of open-ended language in the description of the medium (see above), the use of the phrase “per se”, “such as", “other”, and “e.g.” in listing the types of signals not to be construed as, and because such a listing cannot cover every conceivable non-statutory embodiment, the statement alone is insufficient to overcome this rejection.
Since the specification describes "a computer readable storage medium" as comprising both transitory and non-transitory media, the claim encompasses both and is therefore non-statutory.
The examiner suggests amending the claim(s) to read as a "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium".
Claim(s) 1-20 is(are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 16, and 20 recite(s) the limitation(s) of “generating, by the computing device, a first set of health scores for metric data of the metric and log data using a plurality of artificial intelligence (Al) models”,
“generating, by the computing device, a second set of health scores for log data of the metric and log data using a log data analysis”,
“determining, by the computing device, a similarity score based on the first set of health scores and the second set of health scores”, and
“performing, by the computing device, a validation by comparing the similarity score to a predetermined threshold value” in claim 1,
“generate a first set of health scores for metric data of the metric and log data using a plurality of artificial intelligence (Al) models”,
“generate a second set of health scores for log data of the metric and log data using a log data analysis module”,
“determine a similarity score based on the first set of health scores and the second set of health scores”, and
“perform a validation by comparing the similarity score to a predetermined threshold value” in claim 16, and
“generate a first set of health scores for metric data of the metric and log data using a plurality of artificial intelligence (AI) models which include a matrix profile model, a seasonal trend decomposition (STD) model, an elliptic envelop model, and an isolation forest model; generate a second set of health scores for log data of the metric and log data using a textscalar, a graph embedding component, a graph attention network, a spatial short Fourier transform component, and a gated recurrent unit (GRU)”,
“determine a similarity score based on the first set of health scores and the second set of health scores”, and
“perform a validation by comparing the similarity score to a predetermined threshold value” in claim 20.
This/These limitation(s), as drafted, is(are) a process (processes) that, under its (their) broadest reasonable interpretation, cover(s) performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computing device” in claim 1, “one or mor computer readable storage media” in claim 16, and “a processor”, “a computer readable memory”, “one or more computer readable storage media” in claim 20, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic processing components does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental processes grouping.
The examiner notes that “generating, by the computing device, a first set of health scores for metric data of the metric and log data using a plurality of artificial intelligence (Al) models” involves subjective choices with respect to the type of health score (1-10, 1-100, good and bad, green, yellow, and red, etc.), the factors and metrics used to create the scores, the correspondence between the factors and metrics and the score, and the algorithm used to generate the health scores and includes the concepts of evaluation, judgment, and opinion,
“generating, by the computing device, a second set of health scores for log data of the metric and log data using a log data analysis” involves subjective choices with respect to the type of health score (1-10, 1-100, good and bad, green, yellow, and red, etc.), the factors and metrics used to create the scores, the correspondence between the factors and metrics and the score, and the algorithm used to generate the health scores and includes the concepts of evaluation, judgment, and opinion,
“determining, by the computing device, a similarity score based on the first set of health scores and the second set of health scores” involves subjective choices with respect to the type of similarity score (1-10, 1-100, good and bad, green, yellow, and red, etc.), the subjective health scores used to create the similarity score, the correspondence between the health scores and the similarity score, and the algorithm used to generate the health scores and includes the concepts of evaluation, judgment, and opinion, and
“performing, by the computing device, a validation by comparing the similarity score to a predetermined threshold value” involves subjective comparison of a subjectively generated similarity score and a value and includes the concepts of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion in claim 1,
“generate a first set of health scores for metric data of the metric and log data using a plurality of artificial intelligence (Al) models” involves subjective choices with respect to the type of health score (1-10, 1-100, good and bad, green, yellow, and red, etc.), the factors and metrics used to create the scores, the correspondence between the factors and metrics and the score, and the algorithm used to generate the health scores and includes the concepts of evaluation, judgment, and opinion,
“generate a second set of health scores for log data of the metric and log data using a log data analysis module” involves subjective choices with respect to the type of health score (1-10, 1-100, good and bad, green, yellow, and red, etc.), the factors and metrics used to create the scores, the correspondence between the factors and metrics and the score, and the algorithm used to generate the health scores and includes the concepts of evaluation, judgment, and opinion,
“determine a similarity score based on the first set of health scores and the second set of health scores” involves subjective choices with respect to the type of similarity score (1-10, 1-100, good and bad, green, yellow, and red, etc.), the subjective health scores used to create the similarity score, the correspondence between the health scores and the similarity score, and the algorithm used to generate the health scores and includes the concepts of evaluation, judgment, and opinion, and
“perform a validation by comparing the similarity score to a predetermined threshold value” involves subjective comparison of a subjectively generated similarity score and a value and includes the concepts of observation, evaluation, judgment in claim 16, and
“generate a first set of health scores for metric data of the metric and log data using a plurality of artificial intelligence (AI) models which include a matrix profile model, a seasonal trend decomposition (STD) model, an elliptic envelop model, and an isolation forest model; generate a second set of health scores for log data of the metric and log data using a textscalar, a graph embedding component, a graph attention network, a spatial short Fourier transform component, and a gated recurrent unit (GRU)” involves subjective choices with respect to the type of health score (1-10, 1-100, good and bad, green, yellow, and red, etc.), the factors and metrics used to create the scores, the correspondence between the factors and metrics and the score, and the algorithm or models used to generate the health scores and includes the concepts of evaluation, judgment, and opinion,
“determine a similarity score based on the first set of health scores and the second set of health scores” involves subjective choices with respect to the type of similarity score (1-10, 1-100, good and bad, green, yellow, and red, etc.), the subjective health scores used to create the similarity score, the correspondence between the health scores and the similarity score, and the algorithm used to generate the health scores and includes the concepts of evaluation, judgment, and opinion, and
“perform a validation by comparing the similarity score to a predetermined threshold value” involves subjective comparison of a subjectively generated similarity score and a value and includes the concepts of observation, evaluation, judgment in claim 20. Thus, the claim(s) recite(s) a mental process, concepts that may be performed in the human mind, in this case being observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited including “receiving, by a computing device, metric and log data from an external system” in claim 1,
“receive metric and log data from an external system” and “output the first set of health scores and the second set of health scores and corresponding timestamps to a graphical user interface (GUI)” in claim 16, and
“receive metric and log data from an external system” and “output the first set of health scores and the second set of health scores and corresponding timestamps to a graphical user interface (GUI), wherein the metric data comprises a central processing unit (CPU) utilization, memory utilization, and network bytes” in claim 20 are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processor performing a generic computer function.
Generic processor limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The examiner notes that while performing a resolution to “anomalies” could potentially improve the functioning of a computer, it would need to be a particular solution to a specific problem (An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, see MPEP 2106.05(a), The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it", see MPEP 2106.05(f)), instead of a generic solution to any and all possible problems. The examiner notes that a resolution and “anomalies” would be a generic problem and solution and equivalent to “apply it”, applying a generic resolution or solution to any and all “anomalies” or problems. 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. Therefore, the additional elements fail to improve the functionality of the computer itself.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology or effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Furthermore, the applicant’s own specification details the generic nature of the computing components, which also precludes them from presenting anything significantly more ([0050-0058], fig. 1).
Claim(s) 2-15 and 17-19 do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claim(s) 2 simply details the source or type of metric data and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 simply output a message and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 5 simply further details the determination of the similarity score and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 6-9 simply detail AI model types used and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 10 involves mental processes in the generation of health and similarity scores and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 11 simply outputs health scores and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 12 and 19 simply details types of AI models and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 simply further detail a model and involve mental processes in the calculation of anomaly scores and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 15 and 18 and simply further detail log data analysis and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 17 simply outputs messages and details types of metric data and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 1-20 is(are) therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA P LOTTICH whose telephone number is (571)270-3738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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 5712723655. 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.
/JOSHUA P LOTTICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights