DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action in response to communications received 11/21/25. Claim(s) 1, 5, 11, 16, and 20 has(have) been amended. Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is(are) pending and addressed below.
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
As per claim(s) 20, they are rejected because the applicant has provided evidence that the applicant intends the term "computer-readable storage medium" to include non-statutory matter. The applicant describes a computer-readable storage medium as including open ended language and thus it is reasonable to interpret it to include all possible mediums, including non-statutory mediums (A computer program product embodiment ("CPP embodiment" or “CPP”) is a term used in the present disclosure to describe any set of one, or more, storage media (also called "mediums") collectively included in a set of one, or more, storage devices that collectively include machine readable code corresponding to instructions and/or data for performing computer operations specified in a given CPP claim. A "storage device" is any tangible device that can retain and store instructions for use by a computer processor. Without limitation, the computer-readable storage medium may be an electronic storage medium, a magnetic storage medium, an optical storage medium, an electromagnetic storage medium, a semiconductor storage medium, a mechanical storage medium, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. Some known types of storage devices that include these mediums include: diskette, hard disk, random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), static random access memory (SRAM), compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), digital versatile disk (DVD), memory stick, floppy disk, mechanically encoded device (such as punch cards or pits/lands formed in a major surface of a disc) or any suitable combination of the foregoing. A computer-readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media. As will be understood by those of skill in the art, data is typically moved at some occasional points in time during normal operations of a storage device, such as during access, de-fragmentation, or garbage collection, but this does not render the storage device as transitory because the data is not transitory while it is stored, [0063]). The words "storage", "tangible", and/or "recording" are insufficient to convey only statutory embodiments to one of ordinary skill in the art absent an explicit and deliberate limiting definition or clear differentiation between storage media and transitory media in the disclosure. As such, the claim(s) is/are drawn to a form of energy. Energy is not one of the four categories of invention and therefore this/these claim(s) is/are not statutory. Energy is not a series of steps or acts and thus is not a process. Energy is not a physical article or object and as such is not a machine or manufacture. Energy is not a combination of substances and therefore not a composition of matter. The examiner notes that should claim 20 be amended to overcome the claim being a software only embodiment, the computer-readable medium would still be rejected given the open-ended language pointed to above.
The examiner notes that while the specification states that a computer readable storage medium is not to be construed as a transitory signal per se (A computer-readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media), the use of open-ended language in the description of the medium (see above), the use of the phrase “per se”, “such as", and “other” in listing the types of signals not to be construed as, and because such a listing cannot cover every conceivable non-statutory embodiment, the statement alone is insufficient to overcome this rejection.
Since the specification describes "a computer-readable storage medium" as comprising both transitory and non-transitory media, the claim encompasses both and is therefore non-statutory.
The examiner suggests amending the claim(s) to read as a "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium".
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 20 recite(s) the limitation(s) of “correlating requests and responses from the error data with an outcome of the task”, “evaluating a recovery period based on a proportion of successful outcomes compared to an error duration for the service”, and “defining a recovery performance goal based on the evaluation”. This/These limitation(s), as drafted, is(are) a process (processes) that, under its (their) broadest reasonable interpretation, cover(s) performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor” and “a memory” in claim 11 and “a computer-readable storage medium”, “internal memory”, and “a digital computer” in claim 20, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic processing components does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental processes grouping.
The examiner notes that “correlating requests and responses from the error data with an outcome of the task” involves subjectively comparing, matching, and organizing requests and responses based on a set of subjective criteria and includes the concepts of evaluation, judgment, and opinion, “evaluating a recovery period based on a proportion of successful outcomes compared to an error duration for the service” involves subjectively performing an evaluation based on a subjective proportion of successful outcomes, comparing them to error durations, and correlating the outcomes to an error duration and includes the concepts of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, and “defining a recovery performance goal based on the evaluation” involves subjectively determining a recovery performance goal, how it corresponds to the subjective evaluation, and what algorithm is used to create a “goal” based on a subjective evaluation and includes the concepts of judgment and opinion in claims 1 and 11.
The examiner notes that “evaluating a recovery period based on a proportion of successful outcomes compared to an error duration for the service” involves subjectively performing an evaluation based on a subjective proportion of successful outcomes, comparing them to error durations, and correlating the outcomes to an error duration and includes the concepts of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, and “defining a recovery performance goal based on the evaluation” involves subjectively determining a recovery performance goal, how it corresponds to the subjective evaluation, and what algorithm is used to create a “goal” based on a subjective evaluation and includes the concepts of judgment and opinion in claim 20. Thus, the claim(s) recite(s) a mental process, concepts that may be performed in the human mind, in this case being observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited including “monitoring both a client-side user interface and a server-side application gateway to obtain a plurality of error data”, “obtaining data of outcomes of the task”, “determining an error duration from the requests and responses of the error data”, and “aggregating the error duration and outcome per backend service of the application for multiple users” in claims 1, 11, and 20 are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processor performing generic computer functions of obtaining data, determining a duration, and aggregating data. Generic processor limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The examiner notes that the claim does not provide a solution, in that no recovery is performed, however while a performed recovery could potentially improve the functioning of a computer, it would not be a particular solution to a specific problem (An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, see MPEP 2106.05(a), The recitation of claim limitations that 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, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it", see MPEP 2106.05(f)), but instead a generic solution to any general problem. 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 abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements fail to improve the functionality of the computer itself.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology or effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Furthermore, the applicant’s own specification details the generic nature of the computing components, which also precludes them from presenting anything significantly more ([0053, 0064], fig. 4, 5).
Claim(s) 2-10 and 12-19 do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 involve a mental process of determining what is or is not a “successful outcome” and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 simply receive information and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 4 and 15 involve a mental process of subjectively grouping requests and responses based on a subjective “common” feature and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 involve a mental process in the subjective identification of a subjective “successful” outcome and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 6 involves a mental process of subjectively “evaluating impacts” and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 7 involves a mental process of subjectively determining the threshold of what is a negative impact on an outcome and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 involve a mental process of subjectively filtering based on a subjective “successful outcome” and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 subjectively monitoring (observing) data of errors using a subjective correspondence and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 14 involves a mental process of subjectively determining what outcomes are “successful” or “failed” based on a subjective correspondence to the presence or absence of subjective response types and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 17 involves the mental processes of subjectively “evaluating impacts” and subjectively determining the threshold of what is a negative impact on an outcome and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 1-20 is(are) therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument (see p. 8-9 of remarks) that the computer program product is directed to statutory subject matter, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner notes that the applicant has provided evidence that the applicant intends the term "computer-readable storage medium" to include non-statutory matter. The applicant describes a computer-readable storage medium as including open ended language and thus it is reasonable to interpret it to include all possible mediums, including non-statutory mediums (A computer program product embodiment ("CPP embodiment" or “CPP”) is a term used in the present disclosure to describe any set of one, or more, storage media (also called "mediums") collectively included in a set of one, or more, storage devices that collectively include machine readable code corresponding to instructions and/or data for performing computer operations specified in a given CPP claim. A "storage device" is any tangible device that can retain and store instructions for use by a computer processor. Without limitation, the computer-readable storage medium may be an electronic storage medium, a magnetic storage medium, an optical storage medium, an electromagnetic storage medium, a semiconductor storage medium, a mechanical storage medium, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. Some known types of storage devices that include these mediums include: diskette, hard disk, random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), static random access memory (SRAM), compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), digital versatile disk (DVD), memory stick, floppy disk, mechanically encoded device (such as punch cards or pits/lands formed in a major surface of a disc) or any suitable combination of the foregoing. A computer-readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media. As will be understood by those of skill in the art, data is typically moved at some occasional points in time during normal operations of a storage device, such as during access, de-fragmentation, or garbage collection, but this does not render the storage device as transitory because the data is not transitory while it is stored, [0063]). The words "storage", "tangible", and/or "recording" are insufficient to convey only statutory embodiments to one of ordinary skill in the art absent an explicit and deliberate limiting definition or clear differentiation between storage media and transitory media in the disclosure. As such, the claim(s) is/are drawn to a form of energy. Energy is not one of the four categories of invention and therefore this/these claim(s) is/are not statutory. Energy is not a series of steps or acts and thus is not a process. Energy is not a physical article or object and as such is not a machine or manufacture. Energy is not a combination of substances and therefore not a composition of matter. The examiner notes that should claim 20 be amended to overcome the claim being a software only embodiment, the computer-readable medium would still be rejected given the open-ended language pointed to above.
The examiner also notes that while the specification states that a computer readable storage medium is not to be construed as a transitory signal per se (A computer-readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media), the use of open-ended language in the description of the medium (see above), the use of the phrase “per se”, “such as", and “other” in listing the types of signals not to be construed as, and because such a listing cannot cover every conceivable non-statutory embodiment, the statement alone is insufficient to overcome this rejection. The argument is moot.
In response to applicant’s argument (see p. 10 of remarks) that the claims as a whole, are not directed to an abstract idea of mental processes, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner notes that “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” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)). In other words if none of the limitations can be practically performed in the human mind, then the claim does not recite a mental process. Alternatively, if even a single limitation recites a mental process, then the claim as a whole does recite a mental process. Once an abstract idea, in this case a mental process, is identified in one of the claim limitations, the next step is to follow the prongs of the Alice/Mayo test as to whether the remaining limitations provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception.
In this case claim(s) 1, 11, and 20 recite(s) the limitation(s) of “correlating requests and responses from the error data with an outcome of the task”, “evaluating a recovery period based on a proportion of successful outcomes compared to an error duration for the service”, and “defining a recovery performance goal based on the evaluation”. This/These limitation(s), as drafted, is(are) a process (processes) that, under its (their) broadest reasonable interpretation, cover(s) performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The examiner notes that mental process is not the correlation requests, evaluation of a recovery period, or defining of a recovery performance goal themselves, but that a person had to develop the algorithm, factors, weights, and other subjective criteria of how the correlation of requests and responses, the evaluation of the recovery period, and defining of a recovery performance goal are implemented using only generic computer components.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited including “monitoring both a client-side user interface and a server-side application gateway to obtain a plurality of error data”, “obtaining data of outcomes of the task”, “determining an error duration from the requests and responses of the error data”, and “aggregating the error duration and outcome per backend service of the application for multiple users” in claims 1, 11, and 20 are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processor performing generic computer functions of obtaining data, determining a duration, and aggregating data. The examiner notes that the claim does not provide a solution, in that no recovery is performed, however while a performed recovery could potentially improve the functioning of a computer, it would not be a particular solution to a specific problem (An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, see MPEP 2106.05(a), The recitation of claim limitations that 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, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it", see MPEP 2106.05(f)), but instead a generic solution to any general problem. 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 abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements fail to improve the functionality of the computer itself. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Argument is moot.
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 JOSHUA P LOTTICH whose telephone number is (571)270-3738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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 5712723655. 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.
/JOSHUA P LOTTICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113