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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-9 recite(s) methods, claim(s) 11-15 recite(s) systems, and claim(s) 16-20 recite(s) computer program products comprising computer readable storage media not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se. Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 fall(s) within a statutory category.
Claim 1 recites abstract ideas.
detecting, on the computing system, a given error event causing a system failure corresponds to observations, which are mental processes. The specification does not provide detail on how the limitation is performed. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation includes a human performing a mental process of observing an indication that a given error event caused a system failure.
generating trace information of the memory dump to identify an instruction causing the system failure of the memory dump and a memory location of the instruction; extracting a plurality of machine code instructions preceding the instruction causing the system failure based on the memory location; removing a data part and not operations of the instructions being executed, from the plurality of machine code instructions, to generate a list of operations of the machine code instructions; and comparing the list of operations of the machine code instructions to a plurality of reference memory dumps to identify similarity values of the plurality of reference memory dumps to the memory dump corresponds to data analysis steps recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, and amounts to performing mental processes in a computer environment. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses data analysis of human-readable text. The specification does not provide detail on how the generating limitation is performed, but discloses that a human can process a memory dump ([0042]). Therefore, the generating limitation could be a human reading a memory dump and selecting a relevant portion. The remaining limitations amount to parsing and evaluating human-readable text (Fig. 5, 6, [0043], [0044], [0048]).
Claim 1 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
executing, by a processor on a computing system, a plurality of operating system (OS) instructions amounts to merely using a computer in its ordinary capacity, which is mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
generating, on the computing system, a memory dump for the given error event, wherein the memory dump comprises the plurality of OS instructions amounts to mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
resolving the given error event in the computing system based on the plurality of reference memory dumps amounts to an 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, which is mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 2 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
identifying a developer to process the memory dump for the given error event based on the similarity values amounts to mere data output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 3 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
storing the memory dump in a data storage, wherein storing the memory dump comprises storing a case description, the list of operations of the machine code instructions of the memory dump, and a resolution statement of the memory dump amounts to mere data output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 4 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
storing the memory dump, wherein storing the memory dump comprises storing one or more of a system description of the memory dump, a resolution statement of the memory dump, and developer information of a developer assigned to process the memory dump amounts to mere data output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 5 refines recited abstract ideas.
wherein generating the trace information of the memory dump to identify the memory location of the instruction causing the system failure further comprises identifying the memory location based on an instruction set architecture (ISA) of a processor executing the machine code instructions of the system failure corresponds to data analysis steps recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, and amounts to performing mental processes in a computer environment. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses data analysis of human-readable text. The specification does not provide detail on how the generating limitation is performed, but discloses that a human can process a memory dump ([0042]). Therefore, the generating limitation could be a human reading a memory dump and selecting a relevant portion based on prior knowledge.
The claim does not contain additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application and does not contain additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Claim 6 refines recited abstract ideas.
wherein extracting the plurality of machine code instructions preceding the instruction based on the memory location further comprises starting at the instruction causing the system failure, and collecting a plurality of instructions until a name of a code module that includes the instruction causing the system failure is found corresponds to data analysis steps recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, and amounts to performing mental processes in a computer environment. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses data analysis of human-readable text by parsing and evaluating human-readable text (Fig. 5, 6, [0043], [0044], [0048]).
The claim does not contain additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application and does not contain additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Claim 7 refines recited abstract ideas.
wherein generating the list of operations of the machine code instructions further comprises creating a graph of the list of operations of the machine code instructions corresponds to data analysis steps recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, and amounts to performing mental processes in a computer environment. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses data analysis of human-readable text by parsing and evaluating human-readable text (Fig. 5, 6, [0043], [0044], [0048]).
The claim does not contain additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application and does not contain additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Claim 8 refines recited abstract ideas.
wherein comparing the list of operations of the machine code instructions to the plurality of reference memory dumps to identify the similarity values of the plurality of reference memory dumps to the memory dump further comprises comparing the graph of the list of operations of the machine code to the plurality of reference memory dumps to identify the similarity values of the plurality of reference memory dumps to the memory dump corresponds to data analysis steps recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, and amounts to performing mental processes in a computer environment. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses data analysis of human-readable text by parsing and evaluating human-readable text (Fig. 5, 6, [0043], [0044], [0048]).
The claim does not contain additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application and does not contain additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Claim 9 refines recited abstract ideas.
wherein comparing the list of operations of the machine code instructions to the plurality of reference memory dumps to identify the similarity values of the plurality of reference memory dumps to the memory dump further comprises identifying a control window including the instruction causing the system failure and the list of operations of the machine code instructions; and identifying a number of instructions within the control window of the memory dump that match instructions of respective reference memory dumps to identify the similarity values of the plurality of reference memory dumps to the memory dump corresponds to data analysis steps recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, and amounts to performing mental processes in a computer environment. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses data analysis of human-readable text by parsing and evaluating human-readable text (Fig. 5, 6, [0043], [0044], [0048]).
The claim does not contain additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application and does not contain additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Claim 11 recites abstract ideas.
generating trace information of the memory dump to identify an instruction causing the system failure from the plurality of OS instructions in the memory dump and a memory location of the instruction; extracting a plurality of machine code instructions preceding the instruction causing the system failure from the plurality of OS instructions based on the memory location; removing a data part and not operations of the plurality of machine code instructions, to generate a list of operations of the machine code instructions; and comparing the list of operations of the machine code instructions to a plurality of reference memory dumps to identify similarity values of the plurality of reference memory dumps to the memory dump corresponds to data analysis steps recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, and amounts to performing mental processes in a computer environment. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses data analysis of human-readable text. The specification does not provide detail on how the generating limitation is performed, but discloses that a human can process a memory dump ([0042]). Therefore, the generating limitation could be a human reading a memory dump and selecting a relevant portion. The remaining limitations amount to parsing and evaluating human-readable text (Fig. 5, 6, [0043], [0044], [0048]).
Claim 11 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
A system, comprising one or more computer processors; and a memory containing a program which when executed by the one or more computer processors performs an operation amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer, which is mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
receiving, from a computing system, a memory dump for a given error event, wherein the memory dump comprises a plurality of operating system (OS) instructions that resulted in the given error event causing a system failure when executed on the computing system amounts to mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
resolving the given error event in the computing system based on the plurality of reference memory dumps amounts to an 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, which is mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 12 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
identifying a developer to process the memory dump for the given error event based on the similarity values amounts to mere data output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 13 refines recited abstract ideas.
wherein generating the trace information of the memory dump to identify the memory location of the instruction causing the system failure further comprises identifying the memory location based on an instruction set architecture (ISA) of a processor executing the machine code instructions of the system failure corresponds to data analysis steps recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, and amounts to performing mental processes in a computer environment. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses data analysis of human-readable text. The specification does not provide detail on how the generating limitation is performed, but discloses that a human can process a memory dump ([0042]). Therefore, the generating limitation could be a human reading a memory dump and selecting a relevant portion based on prior knowledge.
The claim does not contain additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application and does not contain additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Claim 14 refines recited abstract ideas.
wherein generating the list of operations of the machine code instructions further comprises creating a graph of the list of operations of the machine code instructions; and wherein comparing the list of operations of the machine code instructions to the plurality of reference memory dumps to identify the similarity values of the plurality of reference memory dumps to the memory dump further comprises comparing the graph of the list of operations of the machine code instructions to the plurality of reference memory dumps to identify the similarity values of the plurality of reference memory dumps to the memory dump corresponds to data analysis steps recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, and amounts to performing mental processes in a computer environment. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses data analysis of human-readable text by parsing and evaluating human-readable text (Fig. 5, 6, [0043], [0044], [0048]).
The claim does not contain additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application and does not contain additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Claim 15 refines recited abstract ideas.
wherein comparing the list of operations of the machine code instructions and the plurality of reference memory dumps to identify the similarity values of the plurality of reference memory dumps to the memory dump further comprises: identifying a control window including the instruction causing the system failure and the list of operations of the machine code instructions; and identifying a number of instructions within the control window of the memory dump that match instructions of respective reference memory dumps to identify the similarity values of the plurality of reference memory dumps to the memory dump corresponds to data analysis steps recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, and amounts to performing mental processes in a computer environment. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses data analysis of human-readable text by parsing and evaluating human-readable text (Fig. 5, 6, [0043], [0044], [0048]).
The claim does not contain additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application and does not contain additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Claim(s) 16-20, the computer program products(s) that implement(s) the system(s) of claim(s) 11-15 respectively, is/are rejected on the same grounds as claim(s) 11-15, respectively.
Claim 16 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
A computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code embodied therewith, the computer-readable program code executable by one or more computer processors to perform an operation amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer, which is mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
For at least the reasons provided above, claim(s) 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, 11-20 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:
None of the prior art of record, either alone or when combined, teaches or suggests comparing the list of operations of the machine code instructions to a plurality of reference memory dumps to identify similarity values of the plurality of reference memory dumps to the memory dump as recited in claim(s) 1, 11, 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pg. 8-9, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9, 11-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 8-9, Applicant argues:
“”The Office rejects claims 1-9 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 suggesting the claimed concept is directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more. Amended claim 1 recites "generating, on the computing system, a memory dump for the given error event, wherein the memory dump comprises the plurality of OS instructions" and "resolving the given error event in the computing system based on the plurality of reference memory dumps," which is significantly more than an abstract idea. "Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations. See SRIInt'l,Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019)." MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Amended claim 1 recites "generating, on the computing system, a memory dump for the given error event, wherein the memory dump comprises the plurality of OS instructions" and "resolving the given error event in the computing system based on the plurality of reference memory dumps," which could not be a mental process because a human cannot practically generate a memory dump for an event occurring in a computer and a human cannot resolve an error event in a computing system in their mind. As one skilled in the art would know, a system failure would cause multiple electrical signals to occur inside of the computing system, which the human mind is not equipped to detect. Further, a memory dump includes memory information when the system failure occurs, and a computing system abruptly stops. There is no way for a human mind to get the information from memory on the computing system to generate the memory dump when the computing system stops functioning due to the given error event. Further, there is no way for a human to "resolv[e] the given error event in the computing system based on the plurality of reference memory dumps" in their mind. For at least these reasons, amended claim 1 recites more than an abstract idea.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. "generating, on the computing system, a memory dump for the given error event, wherein the memory dump comprises the plurality of OS instructions" was indicated as insignificant extra-solution activity and "resolving the given error event in the computing system based on the plurality of reference memory dumps" is indicated as mere instructions to apply an exception. Neither of these limitations have been indicated as abstract ideas. Insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply an exception do not integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Additionally, the claim does not recite detecting electrical signals to detect a system failure. The specification and the claim do not describe how the system failure is detected. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation includes a human performing a mental process of observing an indication that a given error event caused a system failure.
On pg. 9, Applicant argues:
“Further, claims 11 and 16 recites "receiving, from a computing system, a memory dump for a given error event, wherein the memory dump comprises a plurality of operating system (OS) instructions that resulted in the given error event causing a system failure when executed on the computing system" and "resolving the given error event in the computing system based on the plurality of reference memory dumps." A human could not "receiv[e], from a computing system, a memory dump for a given error event, wherein the memory dump comprises a plurality of operating system (OS) instructions" nor "resolv[e] the given error event in the computing system based on the plurality of reference memory dumps" in their mind nor does claims 11 and 16 recite a mathematical concept or method of organizing human activity. As such, for the same reasons as above, claims 11 and 16 recite more than an abstract idea.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. "receiving, from a computing system, a memory dump for a given error event, wherein the memory dump comprises a plurality of operating system (OS) instructions that resulted in the given error event causing a system failure when executed on the computing system" was indicated as insignificant extra-solution activity and "resolving the given error event in the computing system based on the plurality of reference memory dumps" is indicated as mere instructions to apply an exception. Neither of these limitations have been indicated as abstract ideas. Insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply an exception do not integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5721. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00AM-3:00PM PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571)272-3655. 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.
/A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2113
/MARC DUNCAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113