DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an amendment filed on December 30, 2025 for the application of Berg et al., for a “Health Metrics Associated With Cloud Services” filed on April 26, 2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 21, 2026 has been considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claims 1, 11, and 18 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is impractical for the examiner to review the references thoroughly with the number of references cited in the case. By initialing each of the cited references on the accompanying 1449 forms, the examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and merely indicating that only a cursory review is made of the cited references.
An applicant's duty of disclosure of material and information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with "a mountain of largely irrelevant [material] from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical [material]. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work." Rohm & Haas Co. V. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573 [220 USPQ 289] (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) (Emphasis in original). Patent applicant has a duty not just to (disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such way as not to "bury" it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art; See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. V. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1801 (N.D Ind. 1992); Molins PLC V. Textron Inc., 26 USPQ2d 1889, at 1899 (D.Del. 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. V. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. et al, 175 USPQ 260, at 272 (S.D. FI- 1972).
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes-concepts performed in human mind and mathematical concepts.
Claim 1 recites abstract ideas:
determining a first health metric for a first service in a cloud environment based on computer-readable telemetry data indicative of a first alarm state for a first monitored component associated with the first service corresponds to data analysis steps recited at high level of generality such that they could be performed in the human mind, which are mental processes. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light on the specification encompasses analyzing data values and comparing thresholds/patterns ([0169]).
determining a first service feature of the first service; determining, based on a computer-readable dependency graph, a first plurality of downstream service features that depend on the first service feature corresponds to data analysis steps recited at high level of generality such that they could be performed in the human mind, which are mental processes (i.e., a human viewing a graph).
determining a first impact weight for the first service based on the first plurality of downstream service features, wherein the first impact weight represents an impact that the first service feature has on the first plurality of downstream service features that depend on the first service feature corresponds to data analysis steps recited at high level of generality such that they could be performed in the human mind, which are mental processes (i.e., a human assigning a value to a parameter).
computing a first weighted health metric for the first service at least by applying the first impact weight to the first health metric, wherein the first weighted health metric represents a service health state of the first service based at least in part on a combination of (a) the first alarm state associated with the first service and (b) the impact that the first service feature of the first service has on the first plurality of downstream service features that depend on the first service feature corresponds to mathematical calculations, which are mathematical concepts. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses a sum, product, or weighted sum ([0265]).
Claim 1 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
of a cloud environment amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
generating, for display on a service health interface, a first visual representation comprising an order of priority for responding to the service health state of the first service, the order of priority based at least in part on a ranking of the first weighted health metric for the first service relative to a second weighted health metric for a second service in the cloud environment amounts to mere data output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
wherein the method is performed by at least one device including a hardware processor 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 generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.05(g), and MPEP 2106.05(h).
As for the limitations recited in claims 2-10, when considering each of the claims as a whole these additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. The additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The additional element do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claims 11-17 non-transitory computer-readable media that implements the method of claims 1-10, respectively are rejected on the same grounds as claims 1-10.
Claim 11 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations comprising 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).
Claims 18-20 non-transitory computer-readable media that implements the method of claims 1-10, respectively are rejected on the same grounds as claims 1-10.
Claim 18 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
A system comprising: at least one device including a hardware processor; the system being configured to perform operations comprising 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 the reasons stated above, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In view of the applicant’s amendments, the previous rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 35 USC § 101 rejections, applicant's arguments, see pages 12-16, filed on December 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 12 applicant argues:
“Claim 1 integrates the contended judicial exception into a practical application at least because claim 1 improves technology for monitoring service health of services of a cloud environment by using telemetry data associated with the service to determine an order of priority for responding to the service health state of the service. Consistent with MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1), claim 1 meaningfully limits the use of the contended judicial exception because the telemetry data is a computer-readable indication of an alarm state for a monitored component associated with the service, and because the computer-readable telemetry data serves as the basis for determining an impact weight that represents an impact that a service feature of the service has on downstream service features. Additionally, the order of priority for responding to the service health state of the service is based on a ranking of a weighted health metric for the service relative to other services. This weighted health metric, which also depends on the computer-readable telemetry data, represents a combination of the alarm state associated with the service and the impact that the service feature has on the downstream service features.
Moreover, as a whole, claim 1 provides a "technological solution to a technological problem," which the courts have found amounts to more than merely applying the judicial exception. See e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300-01 (Fed. Cir. 2016). It is a technological problem that an alarm state associated with a service feature of a service has an impact on downstream service features. Claim 1 provides a technological solution to this technological problem by determining an order of priority for responding to the service health state of the service based on the impact on downstream service features revealed from computer- readable telemetry data. The technological solution includes generating a visual representation for display on a service health interface. Accordingly, "cloud operators may utilize the health monitoring utility to optimize resource allocation or utilization and/or to promptly respond to issues that may arise" in a manger that takes into consideration this impact on downstream service features. See [0039].”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not demonstrated how the claim improves service health monitoring technology for cloud computing environments and is merely stating the claim limitations provide improvement.
As stated above under the 35 USC § 101 rejection section, determining a first health metric for a first service in a cloud environment based on computer-readable telemetry data indicative of a first alarm state for a first monitored component associated with the first service corresponds to data analysis steps recited at high level of generality such that they could be performed in the human mind, which are mental processes. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light on the specification encompasses analyzing data values and comparing thresholds/patterns ([0169]). A human operator can evaluate/analyze computer-readable telemetry data, which are data collected by a monitoring utility.
Further determining an order of priority for responding to the service health state of the service based on the impact on downstream service features revealed from computer-readable telemetry data corresponds to data analysis steps recited at high level of generality such that they could be performed in the human mind, which are mental processes. A human operator can evaluate/analyze alarms based on threshold comparisons and sort the alarms based on a weighted metric comparison to determine an order of priority.
On pages 13-14 applicant argues:
“The Office alleges that generating a visual representation for display on a service health interface is insignificant extra-solution activity. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as "activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim." MPEP § 2106.05(g). However, generating the visual representation is part of the technological solution provided by using computer-readable telemetry data to determine an order of priority for responding to a service health state of a service based on an impact on downstream service features. Consequently, generating the visual representation is part of the primary method and not merely nominal or tangential data output.
Accordingly, because Applicant's specification sets forth an improvement in technology, and claim 1 itself reflects the disclosed improvement, claim 1 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application by improving a technology or technical field. As such, claim 1 is patent-eligible at Pathway B of the eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP § 2106, without requiring analysis under Step 2B.
A. Claim 1 is not directed to a mental process and cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
As set forth in MPEP §2106.04(a), the enumerated grouping of abstract ideas includes mental processes, which are defined as "concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)." However, concepts that cannot practically be performed in the human mind and thus are not "mental processes." MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The Office has acknowledged in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) that the Federal Circuit case SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019) is one example of a claim that cannot be practically performed in the human mind and therefore does not recite a mental process. In SRIInt'l, the Federal Circuit found that a claim to detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets cannot be practically performed in the human mind and therefore does not recite a mental process. 930 F.3d 1303.
Claim 1 is analogous to SRI Int'l., where the Federal Circuit found that "the human mind is not equipped" to detect suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets as recited by the claims. 930 F.3d 1304. Likewise, the human mind is not equipped to determine a health metric for a service in a cloud environment based on computer-readable telemetry data indicative of an alarm state for a monitored component associated with the service, as recited in claim 1. The human mind cannot process computer-readable telemetry data. Consequently, the human mind cannot determine a health metric based on computer-readable telemetry data that the human mind cannot process. Additionally, the human mind cannot process a computer-readable dependency graph. Consequently, determining, based on a computer-readable dependency graph, a plurality of downstream service features that depend on the service feature, as recited in claim 1, cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Furthermore, the human mind cannot generate a visual representation for display on a service health interface. Consequently, generating the visual representation for display on a service health interface, as recited in claim 1, cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, similar to SRI Int'l., claim 1 does not recite a mental process.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above under the 35 USC § 101 rejection section, determining a first health metric for a first service in a cloud environment based on computer-readable telemetry data indicative of a first alarm state for a first monitored component associated with the first service corresponds to data analysis steps recited at high level of generality such that they could be performed in the human mind, which are mental processes. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light on the specification encompasses analyzing data values and comparing thresholds/patterns ([0169]). A human operator can evaluate/analyze computer-readable telemetry data, which are data collected by a monitoring utility. A human operator can read/analyze a dependency graph to determine dependencies.
Further, generating a visual representation for display on a service health interface merely outputs the result of abstract ideas. A visual presentations comprising an order of priority for responding to the service health state is merely outputting results of abstract ideas and does not provide a technological solution to a technological problem.
On pages 14-15, applicant argues:
“B. Claim 1 is not directed to a mathematical formula.
The Office alleges that claim 1 recites mathematical concepts. As set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), the mathematical concepts grouping is defined as "mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations." However, MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) makes clear that a claim "does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping) if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept." The above-referenced element of claim 1 is analogous to Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cited in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) as a claim that does not recite a mathematical concept because it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept.
In Thales, determining that the claims to a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform did not merely recite "the abstract idea of using 'mathematical equations for determining the relative position of a moving object to a moving reference frame'." The Federal Circuit found that the mathematical equations utilized in the claim "serve only to tabulate the position and orientation information" for a particular arrangement of sensors. Id. at 1348. Accordingly, as explained in Thales, the fact that "a mathematical equation is required to complete the claimed method and system does not doom the claims to abstraction." Id. at 1349. Similarly, computing a first impact weight for the first service based on the first plurality of downstream service features, and computing a first weighted health metric for the first service at least by applying the first impact weight to the first health metric, as recited in claim 1, do not recite mathematical concepts. Rather, similar to Thales, these elements are only based on or involve a mathematical concept but do not themselves recite a mathematical concept. Consequently, the above-reference element of claim 1 does not fall within the mathematical concept grouping.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to point out that “determining the relative position of a moving object to a moving reference frame” is not analogous to “computing a first weighted health metric for the first service at least by applying the first impact weight to the first health metric”. The applicant has not demonstrated how they are analogous. As indicated in the specification, [0265], “computing a first weighted health metric for the first service at least by applying the first impact weight to the first health metric” is merely a sum, product, or weighted sum, which amounts to a mathematical calculation. Please refer to the 35 USC § 101 rejection section for further details/analysis.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elmira Mehrmanesh whose telephone number is (571)272-5531. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bryce Bonzo, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Elmira Mehrmanesh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113