Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A method for managing operation of a deployment comprising data processing systems, the method comprising:
obtaining a portion of log entries from a data processing system of the data processing systems;
making a first determination, based on matching the portion of the log entries to a portion of a directed acyclic graph, regarding whether the data processing system is likely to or has exhibited undesired operation, the directed acyclic graph indicating relationships between offending signatures associated with different types of undesired operation and log entry patterns, and the log entry patterns being problem contexts for the different types of undesired operation of the data processing system;
in a first instance of the first determination where the data processing system is likely to or has exhibited undesired operation:
identifying, based on the portion of the log entries, a problem context of the problem contexts;
identifying, based on the problem context, a root cause of the undesired operation;
identifying, based on the root cause, an action set to remediate the root cause of the undesired operation; and
performing the action set to manage an impact of the root cause to improve a likelihood of continued provisioning of computer implemented services by the data processing system.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claim 1).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions).
In claim 1, the step of “making a first determination, based on matching the portion of the log entries to a portion of a directed acyclic graph, regarding whether the data processing system is likely to or has exhibited undesired operation” is a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea.
The steps of “identifying, based on the portion of the log entries, a problem context of the problem contexts”;
“identifying, based on the problem context, a root cause of the undesired operation”; and
“identifying, based on the root cause, an action set to remediate the root cause of the undesired operation” are mental processes, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
obtaining a portion of log entries from a data processing system of the data processing systems; the directed acyclic graph indicating relationships between offending signatures associated with different types of undesired operation and log entry patterns, and the log entry patterns being problem contexts for the different types of undesired operation of the data processing system; in a first instance of the first determination where the data processing system is likely to or has exhibited undesired operation: and performing the action set to manage an impact of the root cause to improve a likelihood of continued provisioning of computer implemented services by the data processing system.
The additional element “obtaining a portion of log entries from a data processing system of the data processing systems“ represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application. The additional elements “the directed acyclic graph indicating relationships between offending signatures associated with different types of undesired operation and log entry patterns, and the log entry patterns being problem contexts for the different types of undesired operation of the data processing system”; “in a first instance of the first determination where the data processing system is likely to or has exhibited undesired operation”: and “performing the action set to manage an impact of the root cause to improve a likelihood of continued provisioning of computer implemented services by the data processing system” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception.
The additional element “a data processing system” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is considered a generic computer element. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, obtaining a portion of log entries from a data processing system of the data processing systems is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., obtaining log entries data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For example, in a first instance of the first determination where the data processing system is likely to or has exhibited undesired operation is disclosed by “Dettinger US 20040225689”, [0024], [0037]; and “Yu US 20150170406”, [0037], [0060], [0184].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 11 and 16 recite subject matter that are similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claims are also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
Examiner' s Note
Regarding Claims 1-20, the most pertinent prior arts are “Dettinger US 20040225689”, “Yu US 20150170406 ”, “Kottapalli US 11630719B1”, “Wang US 20230112346”, “Sawai US 11632315B1”, “Waldhofer US 20230112221”, and “Wang US 20230334035”. However, the published date for “Wang US 20230334035” is later than the instant application’s effective filing date of 04/26/2024.
As to claims 1, 11, and 16, Dettinger teaches “a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing a deployment comprising data processing systems (Dettinger, [0014], [0015], [0033], [0036]);
obtaining a portion of log entries from a data processing system of the data processing systems (Dettinger, Abstract, [0013], [0014]);
in a first instance of the first determination where the data processing system is likely to or has exhibited undesired operation (Dettinger, [0024], [0037]):
identifying, based on the portion of the log entries, a problem context of the problem contexts (Dettinger, [0014], [0024], [0037]);
identifying, based on the problem context, a root cause of the undesired operation (Dettinger, [0024], [0041], [0055]);
identifying, based on the root cause, an action set to remediate the root cause of the undesired operation (Dettinger, [0004], [0037], [0048], [0059]); and
performing the action set to manage an impact of the root cause to improve a likelihood of continued provisioning of computer implemented services by the data processing system (Dettinger, [0010], [0037], [0048], [0055], [0058]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “making a first determination, based on matching the portion of the log entries to a portion of a directed acyclic graph, regarding whether the data processing system is likely to or has exhibited undesired operation, the directed acyclic graph indicating relationships between offending signatures associated with different types of undesired operation and log entry patterns, and the log entry patterns being problem contexts for the different types of undesired operation of the data processing system” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 1, 11, and 16.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Wilson US 11588909B1” teaches “Methods, systems, and devices for providing for providing computer implemented services using managed systems are disclosed. To improve the likelihood of the computer implemented services being provided, a subscription based model may be used to manage the managed systems. The subscription based model may provide for automatic configuration of and software deployment to any number of managed systems to provide subscribed to solutions to various users. Over time, the solutions desired by users may change. The subscription based model may facilitate automatic disablement of existing solutions and deployment of new solutions to facilitate changes in solutions. To provide for continuity of solutions, the automated disablement and enablement processes may take into account data compatibility, and may proactively reformat or otherwise modify data to reduce data incompatibility. A continuous experience may be provided through which previously utilized data may be retained and used after solution changes have been implemented.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 EST.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights