DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-20
Claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. However, the claimed invention is directed to performing a mental process using a computer as a tool without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of the claims regarding subject matter eligibility in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG):
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis
Step 1: Do the Claims Specify a Statutory Category?
Claims 1-5, 7-9 describe a method/process, claims 10-14, 16-18 describe a system/device, and claims 19-20 describe a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 1-9
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 1 recites receiving log data from a runtime of an application, analyzing said data to determine an occurrence of an error log, storing the error log in a table, database, and topic, replaying the error log, and removing the replayed error log from the topic upon successful execution. The limitations describe processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., use of a processor or a generic computer). That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The limitations involve collecting data, analyzing data, and storing data. An example of claims that recite mental processes cited in the October 2019 Update to the 2019 PEG includes “a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.” Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A, B, and C). The claims also cite “replaying” the error log. The examiner interprets this as merely an operation done by the human mind using a computer as a tool. Claim 9, in fact, teaches the replaying to be performed manually. The applicant has claimed “removing” replayed log upon successful execution. The examiner interprets this as merely “removing” the label of error log upon successful execution of the manual replay.
The applicant has moved up matter from existing claim 6 from which the examiner has previously rejected the matter as comparing the collected data to predefined data. The examiner interprets this as merely data analysis.
The applicant has also amended the claim to recite automatically providing self-healing to the at least one application as a result of the successful execution of the at least one error log. Even though the claim recites the step to be done “automatically”, the courts have indicated that automation of manual processes may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)(iii): “Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).” The new limitation of providing self-healing to the at least one application as a result of successful execution of the error log is interpreted, by the examiner, as merely presenting a recovery idea and not actually performing an action to change or transform the application. Proper detail of what the error is and how it is remedied would be beneficial to the claim language.
Claim 2 merely recites marking the error log upon successful replay, again, this can be interpreted as a mental process using a computer or a pen.
Claims 3, 8 recite updating parameters such as count and interval. The examiner interprets this merely repeating the manual replay and changing the change parameters upon each manual replay.
Claim 5 merely recites the type of data collected.
Claim 7 recites a result and labeling of the data analysis.
Claim 9 merely recites a user request to replay the collected data.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 1 recites a processor and a database. Even if the described methods are implemented on a computer, there is no indication that the combination of elements in the claim solves any particular technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing computer technology in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exceptions. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s). The processor and storage/database cited in the claim is described at a high level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 1 also recites the steps of data collection, data analysis, replaying the collected data to analyze the results of the replaying. These limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering, display of calculation results, and generically applying a resolution (removing log from the topic) to an identified problem, respectively, without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. The “application” from which the data was collected is not claimed as transformed or remediated from the claimed process. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Claims 2-5, 7-9 contain no additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
In the instant case, as detailed in the analysis for Step 2A-Prong 2, claims 1-5, 7-9 contain additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea. The processors and data storage devices recited in the claim describe a generic computer processor and/or computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
The limitations pertaining to gathering of data, analyzing data, and replaying data describe insignificant extra-solution activity and are written at a high level in a generic manner without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. Therefore, these limitations recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas defined in the claim.
The applicant has also amended the claim to recite providing a self-healing to an application without providing any detail on what error is being detected and/or how the error is healed.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 10-14, 16-18
Claims 10-14, 16-18 contain limitations for a system which are similar to the limitations for the methods specified in claims 1-5, 7-9, respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1, Step 2A – Prong 2, and Step 2B for claims 10-14, 16-18 is similar to that presented above for claims 1-5, 7-9.
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 10-14, 16-18 recite and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract ideas(s). Claims 10-14, 16-18 are therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 19-20
Claims 19-20 contain limitations for a non-transitory computer-readable medium which are similar to the limitations for the methods specified in claims 1-5, 7-9, respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1 and Step 2A – Prong 2 for claims 19-20 is similar to that presented above for claims 1-5, 7-9.
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Claim 19 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea.
Claim 19 recites the additional elements of a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” The computer-readable medium and processor cited in the claim describe generic computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception. The enabling of the processors to troubleshoot a performance problem recites intended use of the claimed limitations and does not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
With respect to the USC 112 rejection, the amended language has overcome the rejection.
With respect to the USC 101 rejection, the applicant has amended and has argued the new limitations overcome the rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner has addressed the new language in the rejection. The examiner contends that the action of self-healing is provided to the application, but is not performed. Moreover, there is no detail of what “self-healing” actions are comprised therein. The examiner contends that the claim language does not define what errors are being self-healed or details of self-healing. As is currently written, the claims are merely drawn to data analysis without any detail of any application of the results of the data analysis. The examiner does not find any improvement to any particular field nor device, but only finds an improvement to an abstract idea, which is still an abstract idea.
The applicant has also argued the claims are directed to a practical application. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering, display of calculation results, and generically applying a resolution (removing log from the topic) to an identified problem, respectively, without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. The “application” from which the data was collected is not claimed as transformed or remediated from the claimed process. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
The applicant is urged to claim language as to an improvement or a transformation of the application as to the self-healing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S MCCARTHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S MCCARTHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights