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 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 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a program product claim. Likewise, claim 11 is a method claim and claim 17 is a system claim.
Under step 2A, prong 1: this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception as explained in MPEP 2106.4, subsection II, a claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial exception is set forth or described in the claim.
Claims 1, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. “mathematical relationships/algorithms/concepts” which the court has identified as abstract) without significantly more. Claims 1, 11 and 17 are directed to the abstract idea of process a stream of performance metrics characterizing a first component within a first topology of a technology landscape; detect an enhancement event in the stream of performance metrics; determine that the enhancement event was caused by an action performed with respect to the first component within the first topology; query a change detection service characterizing the technology landscape, using the first topology and the action; receive, from the change detection service and in response to the query, a second topology of the technology landscape; and implement the action with respect to a second component of the second topology. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts (see para. [0053]; “As described in detail, below, various algorithms or machine learning (ML) models may be used to correlate relevant changes and events with each candidate enhancement event. For example, a time series regression algorithm, such as a vector autoregression algorithm, may be used.”) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are a memory and a processor, these elements are found to be merely generic computer hardware and/or software components, e.g. see Fig. 1 and para, [0063]: “In FIG. 1, the enhancement event service 102 is illustrated as being implemented using at least one computing device 128, including at least one processor 130, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 132. That is, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 132 may store instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor 130, cause the at least one computing device 128 to provide the functionalities of the enhancement event service 102 and related functionalities.”, and therefore merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The data processing are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., “receive, from the change detection service and in response to the query, a second topology of the technology landscape; and implement the action with respect to a second component of the second topology.”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, there’s no description on the implemented action and what it entails.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-20 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the abstract steps of claims 1, 11 and 17 respectively, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Relevant Cited Art
The following publications are prior art made of record not relied upon is
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Slinger et al. U.S. 2022/0237083 A1.
The prior art discloses some features such as a process a stream of performance metrics characterizing a first component within a first topology of a technology landscape (see para. 0030); detect an enhancement event in the stream of performance metrics (see abstract).
However, the prior art fails to disclose query a change detection service characterizing the technology landscape, using the first topology and the action; receive, from the change detection service and in response to the query, a second topology of the technology landscape; and implement the action with respect to a second component of the second topology.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights