DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are pending for examination. Claim 11 was cancelled in claim amendments filed 08/20/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4: Change to “4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein in transmitting the collected set of data to the remote entity for analysis, the data collection rules engine uploads
Claim 20: Change to “…executing program code by one or more processing devices to instantiate an engine which is operatively coupled to an information processing system, wherein the engine comprises an anomaly detection engine, and a data collection rules engine, which collectively operate to perform a targeted data collection process which comprises:…” (page 7).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 recite:
…executes an anomaly detection process to monitor a system health of a storage system in an information processing system
…to detect an anomaly of the storage system from a set of specific anomalies of the storage system in the information processing system;
in response to detecting the anomaly,…computes the time period of interest with the detected anomaly of the storage system from the set of specific anomalies, where the time period of interest is computed based on a time instance associated with a previous error message relevant to the detected anomaly of the storage system found in a log of the storage information processing system; and
sends a notification of the detected anomaly to the data collection rules engine together with the computed time period of interest;
…executes a verification process to process one or more rules from a set of rules to verify a health status of the storage system, based on the notification of the detected anomaly of the storage system sent from the anomaly detection engine; and
in response to verifying that the storage system is unhealthy,…performs the targeted data collection process to collect a set of data that is indicative of the detected anomaly of the storage system for the computed time period of interest; and
transmits the collected set of data to a remote entity for analysis.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 1 is a machine.
Claim 13 is an article of manufacture.
Claim 20 is a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘…executes…to monitor…’ limitation in # 1 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “monitoring” in the context of this claim encompasses a person making one or more observations associated with data.
The ‘…to detect…’ limitation in # 2 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “detecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making one or more observations / evaluations associated with data.
The ‘…computes…’ limitation in # 3 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “computing” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making one or more evaluations associated with data to determine, e.g., a simple value or range.
The ‘…executes…to verify…’ limitation in # 5 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “verifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making one or more evaluations associated with data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘…sends…’ limitation in # 4 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “sending” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data transmission / manipulation. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘…to collect…’ limitation in # 6 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “collecting” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘…transmits…’ limitation in # 7 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “transmitting” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data transmission / manipulation. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, one or more of the claims recite the following additional elements:
at least one processing device (Claims 1 and 13),
a processor (Claim 1),
a memory (Claim 1),
an anomaly detection engine (Claims 1, 13, and 20),
a data collection rules engine (Claims 1, 13, and 20),
an information processing system (Claims 1, 13, and 20),
a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium (Claim 13),
one or more processing devices (Claim 20), and
an engine (Claim 20).
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply an exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply an exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally, with regards to # 4, 6, and 7 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); and
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claims 2 and 14 recite:
…label the collected set of data with a tag indicative of the detected anomaly of the storage system.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 2 is a machine.
Claim 14 is an article of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. The abstract idea(s) of Claims 2 and 14 is/are the same as the abstract idea(s) of Claims 1 and 13, respectively.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘…label…’ limitation in # 8 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “labelling” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data manipulation. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to # 8 above, the following is a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s):
Rousseau (U.S. Patent No. US 8,478,723 B2): col. 15, lines 11-35.
Claim 3 recites:
…persistently store the collected set of data with the tag indicative of the detected anomaly of the storage system.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. The abstract idea(s) of Claim 3 is/are the same as the abstract idea(s) of Claim 2.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘…store…’ limitation in # 9 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “storing” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering and/or storage / manipulation. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to # 9 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claims 4 and 15 recite:
…uploads the collected set of data to another information processing system for analytic processing.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. The abstract idea(s) of Claims 4 and 15 is/are the same as the abstract idea(s) of Claim 1 and 13, respectively.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘…uploads…’ limitation in # 10 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “uploading” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data transmission / manipulation. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to # 10 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Claims 5-7 and 16-18 merely further describe the claimed set of specific anomalies of Claims 1 and 13, respectively, in the context of a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 8 and 19 recite:
determine whether the detected anomaly of the storage system is a critical anomaly; and
proceeds with the verification process, in response to determining that the detected anomaly of the storage system is a critical anomaly.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 8 is a machine.
Claim 19 is an article of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘…determine…’ limitation in # 11 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making one or more evaluations associated with data.
The ‘…proceeds…verification…’ limitation in # 12 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “verifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making one or more evaluations associated with data.
Claims 9 and 21 recite:
…computes the time period of interest based on a time instance that the anomaly occurred or caused an alert.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 9 is a machine.
Claim 21 is a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘…computes…’ limitation in # 13 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “computing” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making one or more observations / evaluations associated with data.
Claim 10 recites:
…computes the time period of interest based on a predetermined time offset with respect to the time instance that the anomaly occurred or caused an alert.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘…computes…’ limitation in # 14 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “computing” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making one or more observations / evaluations associated with data.
Claim 12 merely further describes the claimed collected set of data of Claim 1 in the context of a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 12-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The elements of independent Claims 1, 13, and 20 were neither found through a search of the prior art nor considered obvious by the Examiner. In particular, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations and in the context of their claims as a whole:
Claims 1 and 13: “…the data collection rules engine executes a verification process to process one or more rules from a set of rules to verify a health status of the storage system, based on the notification of the detected anomaly of the storage system sent from the anomaly detection engine; and in response to verifying that the storage system is unhealthy, the data collection rules engine: performs the targeted data collection process to collect a set of data that is indicative of the detected anomaly of the storage system for the computed time period of interest; and…”
Claim 20: “…executing, by the data collection rules engine, a verification process to process one or more rules from a set of rules to verify a health status of the storage system, based on the notification of the detected anomaly of the storage system sent from the anomaly detection engine; and in response to verifying that the storage system is unhealthy, the data collection rules engine: performing the targeted data collection process to collect a set of data that is indicative of the detected anomaly of the storage system for the computed time period of interest; and…”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of Claims 1-10 and 12-21, filed 05/27/2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Remarks argue that:
The Applicant respectfully contends that the subject matter of Claim 1 (as well as Claims 13 and 20) is not directed to a judicial exception of mental processes because Claim 1, when viewed as a whole, includes claim limitations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind and, thus, does not fall within the "mental process" grouping.
In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that the independent Claims 1, 13, and 20 can somehow be characterized as a reciting the judicial exception of mental process, the Applicant respectfully contends that under Prong Two of Step 2A, each independent Claim 1, 13, and 20 recites additional elements which integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the independent Claims 1, 13, and 20 recite elements that reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field with regard to providing anomaly-targeted systems and methods for providing automated and targeted data collection operations that are triggered by specific anomalies detected in a storge system of an information processing system.
The claimed anomaly-targeted systems and methods provide technical improvements over existing data collection systems and methods which perform unfocused gathering of support information, where large amounts of unnecessary data are gathered, which poses several technical issues for the computing resources (e.g., processing, storage, and network resources) in an information processing environment. Moreover, the claimed anomaly-targeted systems and methods improve the functioning of computing system by minimizing resource utilization (e.g., minimizing processing, storage, and network resources). For example, the specification describes various technical advantages associated with such automated anomaly-targeted systems and methods on, e.g., page 3, line 13, through page 4, line 23.
In addition to the specification citations noted above, the specification describes various ways in which the claimed anomaly-targeted systems and methods improve the functioning of computing system by minimizing resource utilization (e.g., minimizing processing, storage, and network resources). For example, the specification describes such improvements to the functioning of computing system by minimizing resource utilization on, e.g., page 13, line 26, through page 14, line 5.
The technical advantages and solutions, and improvement the operation of computing systems, as noted above are embodied in claim limitations of each of the independent Claims 1, 13, and 20. Moreover, the technical advantages and improvements as recited in the claimed subject matter are further evidenced by the fact that the Examiner withdrew a previous prior art rejection, and has not asserted any new rejections. This indicates that but for the 101 issues, the claims are patentable distinct and patentable over the current art of record.
In this regard, even if the Examiner maintains that the Claims 1, 13, and 20, when view in their entirety, recite a judicial exception of mental processes, the Applicant respectfully asserts that the claims are not directed to that judicial exception, since each claim as a whole integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. In view of the above, it is respectfully asserted that at the very least, independent Claims 1, 13, and 20 are directed to statutory subject matter. In addition, all pending dependent claims are directed to statutory subject matter in their own right, or at least in view of their dependency from one of the independent Claims 1, 13, and 20. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is respectfully requested.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regards to A above, Applicant has not provided a specific argument as to why the aforementioned mental processes cannot be performed in the human mind. As such, the Examiner asserts that each mental process is categorized as a mental process according to this Office action above.
With regards to B, C, and D above, the Examiner notes that elements from these sections of the instant specification, such as “large amounts of unnecessary data are gathered,” “the transfer time could be measured in hours,” “the time to load the content into triage tools,” “10 Gigabytes (GB) of data may be collected by an existing data collection process while anomaly-targeted data collection according to one or more illustrative embodiments can be a fraction of the 10 GB data set, e.g., 300-500 Megabytes (MB),” “anomaly-targeted data collection can occur in faster time than existing data collections, e.g., 5-10 minutes for the former versus 20-60 minutes for the latter,” etc. are not part of the claims. The claims mention nothing regarding size of data or time(s) taken to process some large set or volume of data points. The Examiner respectfully asserts that Claims 1, 13, and 20 could be performed based on the following scenario:
A person reviews a graph using, e.g., a generic computer and display, where the graph is of 4 data points in a time series, where 1 of the data points is skewed from the others, thereby signifying an anomaly.
The person checks either an extension of the same graph or a different graph of 4 other data points that occurred in the past to see whether or not his/her ‘time period of interest’ should include the data from both graphs.
The person writes an email and/or talks over results in a meeting according to the claimed ‘sends a notification.’
The person thinks about the data and verifies a health status.
The person circles the pertinent data points for his/her analysis on one or more graphs as a ‘data collection process.’
Additionally, this process could be done automatically by a generic computer where the data points could be automatically highlighted on the display.
The person sends the data to a team of experts, again either via email or by word-of-mouth.
Such a scenario doesn’t even require a computer or, at most, requires generic computer components and software. How do generic actions of generic computer components reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field?
With regards to E above, the Examiner asserts two points:
There were, in fact, prior art rejections in the last Office action which Applicant appeared not to address. Nevertheless, they have been withdrawn with the latest amendments.
The Examiner refers to MPEP 2106.05(I): “As made clear by the courts, the " ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9).”
With regards to F above, the Examiner does not understand the argument regarding statutory subject matter. The Examiner asserts that a subject matter analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 is a 2-step process, as shown in the flowchart of MPEP 2106(III). Even when passing Step 1, Steps 2A and 2B need to be further considered.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH KUDIRKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5pm ET.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at (571) 272-0631. 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.
/JOSEPH R KUDIRKA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights