DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 03/28/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 without integration into a practical application and without significantly more because the recited steps/operations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Independent claims:
Step 1:
Regarding the independent claims, claims 1, 11 and 16 fall respectively under the “machine”, “manufacture”, and “process” statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claims 1, 11, and 16 each recite limitations directed to determining and resolving interruptions to computing components and which encompass processes practically performed mentally or with pen and paper. The USPTO 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Guidance") explains that "mental processes" include acts that people can perform in their minds or using pen and paper, even if the claim recites that a generic computer component performs the acts. ("If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind.").
Here, claims 1, 11, and 16 each recites generate a Bi-Partite knowledge graph comprising the at least one interruption within at least one interruption priority queue and the at least one potential response computing component within at least one response priority queue, wherein the Bi-Parte knowledge graph comprises a relational edge between the at least one interruption priority queue and the at least one response priority queue; dynamically updating the Bi-Partite knowledge graph…, the act of generating information (and updating that information), including in the form of a graph, constitutes a mental process, involving observation and evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind by visualizing the information and/or with pen and paper (e.g. by writing two ordered lists (queues) and drawing a line connecting them. Claim 1, 11, and 16 further recite identify at least one interruption and at least one potential response computing component and select, based on the updated at least one interruption priority queue and the updated at least one response priority queue, a priority interruption and a priority potential response computing component, and select, based on the updated at least one interruption priority queue and the updated at least one response priority queue, a priority interruption and a priority potential response computing component each of the acts of identifying and selecting constitutes a mental process, involving observation and evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind (e.g. solely from memory or by reading information);
Thus, consistent with the Guidance and case law, Examiner concludes claims 1, 11, and 16 are each directed to a mental process (i.e., concepts performed in the human mind, such as, an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), which is an abstract idea. See e.g. Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. For Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (2014) (concluding claims reciting receiving two data sets, and combining those data sets into a single data set is "an ineligible abstract process of gathering and combining data"); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding claims directed to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis" were abstract); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding claims were directed to the abstract idea of "selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis").
Additional Elements Analysis (Step 2A, Prong Two and 2B):
The claims do not recite additional elements sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application; nor do the additional elements inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception as shown in the analysis below. Claims 1, 11, and 16 each additionally recite: resolve the priority interruption with the priority response computing component. Claim 1 additionally recites a system comprising: a memory device with computer-readable program code stored thereon; at least one processing device operatively coupled to the at least one memory device and the at least one communication device; claim 11 additionally recites a computer program product comprises at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-readable program code portions embodied therein; and Claim 16 additionally recites: the method is computer-implemented.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The limitation reciting resolve the priority interruption with the priority response computing component, the limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome without any suggestion of details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. MPEP 2106.05(f) ”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"
Similarly to the above, the generically recited elements: system comprising: a memory device with computer-readable program code stored thereon; at least one processing device operatively coupled to the at least one memory device and the at least one communication device; computer program product comprises at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; and computer-implemented method amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application; “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983” (MPEP § 2106.05(f); “The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…Merely reciting the words "apply it" with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea” (MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Dependent Claims:
None of the dependent claims resolve the eligibility issues described above.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 12-14, and 17-19 recite limitations which characterize the informational content of claim elements (e.g. interruption factor comprises an assigned priority, a computed priority…potential response factor comprises a current usage, an available capacity) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Similarly to the above, claims 9, 15, and 20 recite limitations which characterize the informational content of the graph (graph comprises a plurality of interruption priority queues and a plurality of response priority queues) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 3, 4, 7 and 10 recite additional limitations to identify information and update graph (e.g. identify a pre-defined priority for the at least one interruption; and update the Bi-Partite knowledge graph) and/or make selections from the graph which constitutes a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper under the same rationale described for claim 1 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 1-8, 10-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma et al. (US 20240248790 A1) in view of Allen et al. (US 2007/0240126 A1) in further view of Ivanov et al. (US 2023/0075114 A1).
Claims 1, 11, and 16:
Verma discloses the limitations as shown in the following rejections:
A system for determining and resolving interruptions to computing components, the system comprising: a memory device with computer-readable program code stored thereon; at least one processing device operatively coupled to the at least one memory device and the at least one communication device (FIG. 1 and 11).
identify at least one interruption (fault) and at least one potential response computing component; (¶0044-0046)
[storing] the at least one interruption within at least one interruption priority queue (remediation queue) and the at least one potential response computing component (remediation resource) dynamically update…the at least one interruption priority queue based on at least one interruption factor (e.g. severity, priority, history) and the at least one response priority [component] ¶0042, 0049, 0061-0062, 0070, 0088, 0093)
select, based on the updated at least one interruption priority queue and the updated at least one response priority queue, a priority interruption; a priority potential response computing component; and resolve the priority interruption with the priority response computing component (¶0049, 0089-0091).
As shown above, Verma discloses an orchestrator which controls a cluster of “Remediation resources can include, e.g., compute resources for remediation, memory resources for remediation, remediation service resources” (¶0031, 0096), and discloses interruption priority queue (remediation queue) but does not specifically disclose prioritizing the response computing component within response computing component queue based on at least one potential response factor.
Allen, however, discloses (¶0031, 0034, 0048-0050, 0054, 0057) an analogous system for selecting resources to process fault events including at least one potential response computing component (resource) within at least one response priority queue (list), and dynamically update...the at least one response priority queue based on at least one potential response factor
"The available resources are then ranked according to the output of the weighting function and the highest-ranking available resource is then selected. Thus, the most appropriate resource is selected based upon the individual identified characteristics of the available resources optimized by the weighted requirements (¶0031)...the selection function 314 operates to determine the highest weighted characteristic value as the optimum resource. In this case, the selection module 316 identifies resource 308A, having the highest weighted characteristic value 318A, as the optimum resource for the broadcast event 304A. A tabulated list 320A of the available resources 308A-308C appropriately prioritized for the broadcast event...The selection module 316 then delivers each listed resource 308A-308C in the prioritized order” (¶0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify Verma to employ Allen’s method of prioritizing/ranking resources for selection to ensure the optimum resource is selected under both dynamic and static conditions (¶0031-0035).
The combination of Verma/Allen disclose the claim elements as shown above, but Verma/Allen do not specifically disclose generating a Bi-Partite knowledge graph representation of the elements.
However, it was known in the art to utilize a Bi-Partite knowledge graph to facilitate event-resource assignment methods as evidenced by Ivanov disclosing “applying Bipartite Graph matching between resources and requests in a distributed computing system to achieve efficient allocation of resources to requests”. Ivanov further discloses (¶0005-0007, 0031, 0051-0056) generate a Bi-Partite knowledge graph comprising the at least one interruption (request) within at least one interruption priority queue (request list) and the at least one potential response computing component within at least one response priority queue (resource lists), wherein the Bi-Parte knowledge graph comprises a relational edge between the at least one interruption priority queue and the at least one response priority queue. Exemplary quotation:
“In certain implementations, both requests and resources can be enumerated into respective lists in a Bipartite Graph according to physical attributes…Upon receiving one or more requests from users, a resource allocator can be configured to enumerate the received requests and any existing requests into a request list. The resource allocator can also enumerate resources, both allocated and unallocated resources in the distributed computing system into a resource list. The request list and the resource list can then be constructed into a Bipartite Graph. A Bipartite Graph is a graph whose vertices (or endpoints) are divided into two disjoint and independent lists U and V such that an edge connects a vertex in U to one in V in the Bipartite Graph.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify Verma/Allen to generate a Bipartite Graph as taught by Ivanov to receive an intuitive visualization of the system’s state and to receive benefits of “applying Bipartite Graph matching to the requests and resources, resources with different sets of physical attributes can be efficiently and suitably assigned to requests with different constraints of such physical attributes” (Ivanov ¶0031)
Claims 2, 12, and 17:
The combination of Verma/Wang/Ivanov discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Verma further discloses wherein the at least one interruption is associated with at least one computing component (Abstract).
Claim 3:
The combination of Verma/Wang/Ivanov discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Verma further discloses identify a pre-defined priority for the at least one interruption; and update the Bi-Partite knowledge graph with the at least one interruption priority queue based on the pre-defined priority.(¶0065-0067, 0109-0111).
Claim 4:
The combination of Verma/Wang/Ivanov discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Verma further discloses determine whether the at least one interruption is associated with a plurality of interruptions; and shift up, in an instance where the at least one interruption is associated with the plurality of interruptions, the at least one interruption in the at least one interruption priority queue (¶0087, 0094).
Claims 5, 13, and 18:
The combination of Verma/Wang/Ivanov discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Verma further discloses wherein the at least one interruption factor comprises an assigned priority, a computed priority, a workaround, time to resolution, previous responses, or a root cause analysis. (¶0099, 0104, 0112).
Claims 6, 14, and 19:
The combination of Verma/Wang/Ivanov discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Verma further discloses wherein the at least one potential response factor comprises a current usage, an available capacity, a system stability, a required and a scheduled maintenance, an obsolescence, or a vulnerability (¶0060, 0081).
Claim 7:
The combination of Verma/Wang/Ivanov discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Verma Further discloses identify at least one pre-determined interruption parameter for the at least one interruption, wherein the at least one pre-determined interruption parameter comprises at least one application impacted, a pre-defined priority, or a pre-defined maximum downtime; and update the Bi-Partite knowledge graph with the at least one interruption priority queue based on the at least one pre-determined parameter.
Claim 8:
The combination of Verma/Wang/Ivanov discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Furthermore, Wang discloses wherein the at least one pre-determined potential response parameter comprises an ownership, a capacity, an availability, an operating system, a current usage role, or a security level (Allen ¶0047-0048, 0056).
Claim 10:
The combination of Verma/Wang/Ivanov discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Verma Further discloses resolving the priority interruption with the priority response computing component, the Bi-Partite knowledge graph comprising the updated at least one interruption priority queue without the priority interruption and the updated at least one response priority queue without the priority response computing component; and select a priority interruption and a priority potential response computing component from the updated Bi-Partite knowledge graph (¶0042, 0049, 0061-0062, 0070, 0088, 0093)).
Claims 9, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma et al. (US 20240248790 A1) in view of Allen et al. (US 2007/0240126 A1) in further view of Ivanov et al. (US 2023/0075114 A1) in further view of Kappler et al. (US 7372857 B1).
Claims 9, 15, and 20:
The combination of Verma/Wang/Ivanov discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. The combination of Verma/Wang/Ivanov does not specifically disclose wherein the Bi-Partite knowledge graph comprises a plurality of interruption priority queues and a plurality of response priority queues.
However, multi-queue implementations are old and well known, as shown by Kappler disclosing (col. 2, li. 36-46; col. 4, li. 1-56) “invention involves scheduling an output of data from multiple queues using a hierarchical tree”
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Verma/Wang/Ivanov to employ Kappler hierarchical tree based multi-queue because “[u]se of a hierarchical tree to schedule queues for servicing requires less resources than conventional methods...The technique of comparing multi-parameter status information stored in the hierarchical tree to service queues provides increased flexibility for scheduling tasks over conventional methods” (Kappler col. 4, li. 36-50).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
The following references are directed to systems and methods for fault detection, prioritization, and resolution: US 7941809 B1, US 20130326510 A1, US 20170139766 A1, US 20230267033 A1, “Fault management in TELCO platforms using Autonomic Computing and Mobile Agents”, “Incident management process for the cloud computing environments”;
“Knowledge graph refinement: A survey of approaches and evaluation methods” discusses meaning of term “knowledge graph”.
“BGSCHEDULER: BIPARTITE GRAPHIC MODEL BASED SCHEDULING FOR CLOUD COMPUTING TASKS” discloses a task to resource assignment method employing a bipartite graph.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Paul Mills whose telephone number is 571-270-5482. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 11:00am-8:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, April Blair can be reached at 571-270-1014.
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.
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.
/P. M./
Paul Mills
06/21/2026
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights