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
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informality:
Change to: “…wherein the engine performs [[an]] a process which comprises:…” (page 6).
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 1-10 and 12-21 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the data collection process" in the final ‘execute’ limitation of the claim on page 2. It is unclear as to which data collection process is being referred to:
Claim 1: “…in response to detecting the anomaly, automatically perform a data collection process which is targeted to the detected anomaly, wherein in automatically performing the data collection process, the engine operates to:…”
Claim 1: “…execute a data collection process that is targeted for the detected anomaly of the storage system based on the computed time period of interest, wherein the data collection process generates a set of collected data indicative of the detected anomaly of the storage system.”
Because Claims 2-10 and 12 depend upon Claim 1, Claims 2-10 and 12 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the data collection process" in the final ‘execute’ limitation of the claim on page 4. It is unclear as to which data collection process is being referred to:
Claim 13: “…in response to detecting the anomaly, automatically perform a data collection process which is targeted to the detected anomaly, wherein in automatically performing the data collection process, the engine operates to:…”
Claim 13: “…execute a data collection process that is targeted for the detected anomaly of the storage system based on the computed time period of interest, wherein the data collection process generates a set of collected data indicative of the detected anomaly of the storage system.”
Because Claims 14-19 depend upon Claim 13, Claims 14-19 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the data collection process" in the final ‘executing’ limitation of the claim on page 6. It is unclear as to which data collection process is being referred to:
Claim 20: “…in response to detecting the anomaly, automatically performing a data collection process which is targeted to the detected anomaly, wherein automatically performing the data collection process comprises:…”
Claim 20: “…executing a data collection process that is targeted for the detected anomaly of the storage system based on the computed time period of interest, wherein the data collection process generates a set of collected data indicative of the detected anomaly of the storage system.”
Because Claim 21 depends upon Claim 20, Claim 21 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
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:
execute 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 and a time period of interest associated with the detected anomaly of the storage system from the set of specific anomalies; and
in response to detecting the anomaly, automatically perform a data collection process which is targeted to the detected anomaly, wherein in automatically performing the data collection process, the engine operates to: compute the time period of interest 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
execute a data collection process that is targeted for the detected anomaly of the storage system based on the computed time period of interest, wherein the data collection process generates a set of collected data 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 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 ‘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 ‘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 ‘compute’ 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.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘execute’ limitation in # 4 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “executing” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. 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 engine (Claims 1, 13, and 20),
a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium (Claim 13), and
one or more processing devices (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 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 set of collected 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 # 5 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 # 5 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.
Claims 3 and 15 recite:
make the set of collected data available for further analytic processing.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 3 is a machine.
Claim 15 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 3 and 15 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 ‘make…available’ limitation in # 6 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “making…available” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering and/or outputting. 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 # 6 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);
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; and
iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claim 4 recites:
send the set of collected data to another information processing system to enable further analytic processing therein.
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 4 is/are the same as the abstract idea(s) of Claim 3.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘send’ limitation in # 7 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 gathering and/or outputting. 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 # 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);
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; and
iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claims 5-7 and 16-18 merely further describe the claimed set of specific anomalies of Claims 1 and 13, respectively.
Claims 8 and 19 merely further describe the claimed anomaly detection and data collection process of Claims 1 and 13, respectively.
Claims 9 and 21 recite:
compute 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 ‘compute’ limitation in # 8 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:
compute 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 ‘compute’ limitation in # 9 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 set of collective data of Claim 1.
For at least the reasoning provided above, Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are patent ineligible.
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 1-3, 9, 10, 12-15, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brew et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 10,241,853 B2), hereinafter “Brew,” and further in view of Lu et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 11,281,520 B2), hereinafter “Lu.”
With regards to Claim 1, Brew teaches:
an apparatus comprising:
at least one processing device comprising a processor (col. 7, lines 13-29.) that is operatively coupled to a memory (col. 7, lines 13-29 and col. 6, lines 11-22.), wherein the memory stores program instructions that are executed by the at least one processing device (col. 7, lines 13-29 and col. 6, lines 11-22.) to instantiate an engine (col. 7, lines 30-38; regarding, e.g., a computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other device.) which operates to:
execute an anomaly detection process to monitor a system health (Fig. 2 and col. 2, lines 60-67.) of a “system” in an information processing system (Fig. 2 and col. 2, lines 60-67; regarding, e.g., a network device such as a data center.) to detect an anomaly of the “system” (Fig. 2 and col. 2, lines 60-67.) from a set of specific anomalies of the “system” in the information processing system (Fig. 2 and col. 2, lines 60-67.) and a time period of interest associated with the detected anomaly of the “system” from the set of specific anomalies (Fig. 3 and col. 3, lines 4-16; regarding, e.g., a time slot within a repeating time range.); and
in response to detecting the anomaly, automatically perform a data collection process which is targeted to the detected anomaly (col. 2, lines 21-26.), wherein in automatically performing the data collection process, the engine operates to:
compute the time period of interest based on a time instance associated with a previous error message relevant to the detected anomaly of the “system” found in a log of the “system;” (Fig. 3 and col. 3, lines 17-32.) and
execute a data collection process that is targeted for the detected anomaly of the “system” based on the computed time period of interest, wherein the data collection process generates a set of collected data indicative of the detected anomaly of the “system.” (Fig. 3; col. 3, lines 32-50; col. 3, lines 63-67; and col. 4, lines 1-17; regarding, e.g., an array of count values corresponding to time slots within a time range collected for seasonality analysis [a set of collected data].)
Brew does not explicitly teach:
a storage system.
However, Lu teaches:
a storage system (Fig. 7; col. 10, lines 66 and 67; and col. 11, lines 1-4.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Brew with a data center that includes, in part, a mass-storage array as taught by Lu because combining prior art elements (a data center – Brew: Fig. 2 and Brew: col. 2, lines 60-67; and the aforementioned mass-storage array) according to known methods can be performed to yield predictable results (providing known means for a networked data storage system).
With regards to Claim 2, Brew in view of Lu teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as referenced above. Brew in view of Lu further teaches:
wherein the engine further operates to label the set of collected data with a tag indicative of the detected anomaly of the storage system (Brew: Fig. 3 and Brew: col. 3, lines 4-16; regarding, e.g., and ID assigned to a particular fault event.).
With regards to Claim 3, Brew in view of Lu teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as referenced above. Brew in view of Lu further teaches:
wherein the engine further operates to make the set of collected data available for further analytic processing (Brew: Fig. 2; Brew: Fig. 3; and Brew: col. 4, lines 13-56.).
With regards to Claim 9, Brew in view of Lu teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as referenced above. Brew in view of Lu further teaches:
wherein the engine further operates to compute the time period of interest based on a time instance that the anomaly occurred or caused an alert (Brew: Fig. 3; Brew: col. 3, lines 17-50; Brew: col. 3, lines 63-67; and Brew: col. 4, lines 1-17.).
With regards to Claim 10, Brew in view of Lu teaches the apparatus of Claim 9 as referenced above. Brew in view of Lu further teaches:
wherein the engine further operates to compute the time period of interest based on a predetermined time offset with respect to the time instance that the anomaly occurred or caused the alert (Brew: Fig. 3; Brew: col. 3, lines 17-50; regarding, e.g., predetermined bin types [a predetermined time offset]; Brew: col. 3, lines 63-67; and Brew: col. 4, lines 1-17.).
With regards to Claim 12, Brew in view of Lu teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as referenced above. Brew in view of Lu further teaches:
wherein the set of collected data indicative of the detected anomaly comprises results of a health check executed for the storage system (Brew: Fig. 3; Brew: col. 3, lines 32-50; Brew: col. 3, lines 63-67; and Brew: col. 4, lines 1-17; regarding, e.g., the count values.), log data from for the storage system for a time duration relative to the time period of interest (Brew: Fig. 3; Brew: col. 3, lines 32-50; Brew: col. 3, lines 63-67; and Brew: col. 4, lines 1-17; regarding, e.g., the array.), and details relevant to the detected anomaly (Brew: Fig. 3; Brew: col. 3, lines 32-50; Brew: col. 3, lines 63-67; and Brew: col. 4, lines 1-17; regarding, e.g., the time slots and/or the time range.).
With regards to Claim 13, the apparatus of Claim 1 performs the same steps as the product of Claim 13, and Claim 13 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 1 by the teachings of Brew in view of Lu.
With regards to Claim 14, Brew in view of Lu teaches the product of Claim 13 as referenced above. The apparatus of Claim 2 performs the same steps as the product of Claim 14, and Claim 14 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 2 by the teachings of Brew in view of Lu.
With regards to Claim 15, Brew in view of Lu teaches the product of Claim 13 as referenced above. The apparatus of Claim 3 performs the same steps as the product of Claim 15, and Claim 15 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 3 by the teachings of Brew in view of Lu.
With regards to Claim 20, the apparatus of Claim 1 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 20, and Claim 20 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 1 by the teachings of Brew in view of Lu.
With regards to Claim 21, Brew in view of Lu teaches the method of Claim 20 as referenced above. The apparatus of Claim 9 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 21, and Claim 21 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 9 by the teachings of Brew in view of Lu.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brew, further in view of Lu, and further in view of Connelly et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 7,516,362 B2), hereinafter “Connelly.”
With regards to Claim 4, Brew in view of Lu teaches the apparatus of Claim 3 as referenced above. Brew in view of Lu does not explicitly teach:
wherein in making the set of collected data available for further analytic processing, the engine further operates to send the set of collected data to another information processing system to enable further analytic processing therein in accordance with the apparatus of Claim 3.
However, Connelly teaches:
wherein in making the set of collected data available for further analytic processing, the engine further operates to send the set of collected data to another information processing system to enable further analytic processing therein (col. 4, lines 50-62.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Brew in view of Lu with an automated process of transferring data for further analysis as taught by Connelly because automated transfer is more efficient and robust compared to, e.g., manual analysis (Connelly: col. 5, lines 29-40).
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brew, further in view of Lu, and further in view of Higashiyama (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0198310 A1), hereinafter “Higashiyama.”
With regards to Claim 5, Brew in view of Lu teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as referenced above. Brew in view of Lu does not explicitly teach:
wherein the set of specific anomalies comprises a reboot event of at least a portion of the information processing system in accordance with the apparatus of Claim 1.
However, Higashiyama teaches:
wherein the set of specific anomalies comprises a reboot event of at least a portion of the information processing system (Fig. 9 and ¶ 0109.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Brew in view of Lu with an event such as a reboot event as taught by Higashiyama because a simple substitution of one known element (one or more general fault events – Brew: Fig. 2 and Brew: col. 2, lines 60-67) for another (the reboot event) can be performed to obtain predictable results (providing further known types of events, thereby expanding the scope of anomaly categories).
With regards to Claim 16, Brew in view of Lu teaches the product of Claim 13 as referenced above. The apparatus of Claim 5 performs the same steps as the product of Claim 16, and Claim 16 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 5 by the teachings of Brew in view of Lu, further in view of Higashiyama.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brew, further in view of Lu, and further in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2024/0320012 A1), hereinafter “Zhang.”
With regards to Claim 6, Brew in view of Lu teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as referenced above. Brew in view of Lu does not explicitly teach:
wherein the set of specific anomalies comprises an operating system kernel panic event in at least a portion of the information processing system in accordance with the apparatus of Claim 1.
However, Zhang teaches:
wherein the set of specific anomalies comprises an operating system kernel panic event in at least a portion of the information processing system (¶ 0050 and ¶ 0037-0038.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Brew in view of Lu with an event such as a kernel panic as taught by Zhang because a simple substitution of one known element (one or more general fault events – Brew: Fig. 2 and Brew: col. 2, lines 60-67) for another (the kernel panic) can be performed to obtain predictable results (providing further known types of events, thereby expanding the scope of anomaly categories).
With regards to Claim 17, Brew in view of Lu teaches the product of Claim 13 as referenced above. The apparatus of Claim 6 performs the same steps as the product of Claim 17, and Claim 17 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 6 by the teachings of Brew in view of Lu, further in view of Zhang.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brew in view of Lu, and further in view of Zhao et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 10,372,525 B2), hereinafter “Zhao.”
With regards to Claim 7, Brew in view of Lu teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as referenced above. Brew in view of Lu does not explicitly teach:
wherein the set of specific anomalies comprises an input-output pattern in at least a portion of the information processing system in accordance with the apparatus of Claim 1.
However, Zhao teaches:
wherein the set of specific anomalies comprises an input-output pattern in at least a portion of the information processing system (col. 6, lines 43-61.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Brew in view of Lu with an event such as a workload change event affecting an I/O pattern as taught by Zhao because a simple substitution of one known element (one or more general fault events – Brew: Fig. 2 and Brew: col. 2, lines 60-67) for another (the workload change event) can be performed to obtain predictable results (providing further known types of events, thereby expanding the scope of anomaly categories).
With regards to Claim 18, Brew in view of Lu teaches the product of Claim 13 as referenced above. The apparatus of Claim 7 performs the same steps as the product of Claim 18, and Claim 18 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 7 by the teachings of Brew in view of Lu, further in view of Zhao.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brew, further in view of Lu, and further in view of Durrant et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 7,096,387 B2), hereinafter “Durrant.”
With regards to Claim 8, Brew in view of Lu teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as referenced above. Brew in view of Lu further teaches:
the engine comprises an anomaly detection engine (Brew: col. 7, lines 30-38. As interpreted by the Examiner, the computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other device operate as one or more types of engines based on the series of operational steps supported by Brew.) and “an engine;” (Brew: col. 7, lines 30-38.)
the anomaly detection engine operates to monitor the system health (Brew: Fig. 2 and Brew: col. 2, lines 60-67.) and detect anomalies of the storage system in the information processing system (Brew: Fig. 2 and Brew: col. 2, lines 60-67.); and
the “engine” operates to perform a data collection process responsive to the anomaly detection engine (Brew: col. 2, lines 21-26.).
Brew in view of Lu does not explicitly teach:
a rule-based decision tree engine in accordance with the apparatus of Claim 1.
However, Durrant teaches:
a rule-based decision tree engine (Fig. 14; col. 10, lines 44-67; and col. 11, lines 1-6.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Brew in view of Lu with the use of a rule-based device tree as taught by Durrant because the use of the tree, in part, improves the accuracy of determining a faulty device unambiguously (Durrant: col. 12, lines 4-24).
With regards to Claim 19, Brew in view of Lu teaches the product of Claim 13 as referenced above. The apparatus of Claim 8 performs the same steps as the product of Claim 19, and Claim 19 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 8 by the teachings of Brew in view of Lu, further in view of Durrant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of Claims 1-10 and 12-20, filed 03/10/2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Remarks argue that:
In formulating the rejections, the Office action parses the claim language and considers, in isolation, only process steps that are performed without taking into consideration that the process steps are performed by instantiating an engine.
In Prong One of Step 2A, the Examiner must determine whether a claim as a whole recites a judicial exception. If the claim is determined (in Step 2A) to not recite a judicial exception, the claim is considered patent eligible, and the eligibility analysis ends. Only if the claim is found as a whole to recite a judicial exception under Prong One of Step 2A, the eligibility analysis continues to Prong Two of Step 2A.
Independent Claims 1, 13, and 20 recite additional elements that reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field based at least on the instant specification: page 3, line 13 through page 4, line 23.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regards to A and B above, it appears to the Examiner that Applicant is arguing that all claim limitations in a claim must be entirely 100% abstract in order to advance from Step 2A, Prong I to Step 2A, Prong II. The Examiner respectfully asserts that this is incorrect.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong I, MPEP 2106.04(a) recites: “Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas… If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. The claim then requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong Two, to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application…”
The Examiner has done the 35 U.S.C. 101 eligibility analysis in at least this Office action exactly as the MPEP has specified: 1) determining the specific limitation(s) that are abstract, i.e. mental processes, and 2) determining whether any additional elements in the claim do or do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In summary, it can take only one claim limitation (or many claim limitations, but not necessarily every claim limitation) of a claim to render the claim as a whole abstract, per Step 2A, Prong I.
With further regards to “instantiating an engine,” the Examiner stated in at least this Office action that the claimed engine was merely a generic computer component applying the judicial exception(s). Applicant appears to be confusing Step 2A, Prong I with Step 2A, Prong II.
With regards to C above, the Examiner notes that elements from this section of the instant specification, such as “significant size of the data collected,” “the transfer time could be measured in hours,” “the time to load the content into triage tools,” etc. are not part of the claims. The claims mention nothing regarding size of data or time 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 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.
Such a scenario doesn’t even require a computer or, at most, requires generic computer components. How do generic actions of generic computer components reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field?
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bantz et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 7,475,135 B2); teaching that a system accesses a log of events on more than one computing system and scans these logs in an effort to determine the likely cause of various items of interest, events, or problems. These items of interest often include improper or frustrating behavior of a computer system, but may also include delightful or beneficial behaviors for which a user, group of users, company, service, or help desk seeks a cause. Once the likely source of the item of interest is found, a test may be performed to confirm the source of the problem and warning or corrective action taken.
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