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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 08/18/2025.
Claims 7-12, 21, and 23-24 are canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 13-14, 16, 18, and 22 are currently amended.
Claims 1-6, 13-20, 22, and 25-26 are currently pending and examined below.
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 1-6, 13-20, 22, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-6, 13-20, 22, and 25-26 is/are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites (additional elements underlined):
A system, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory configured with program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by the processor, cause the system to perform operations that comprise:
periodically scan at least one Information Handling System (IHS) via a communication network to capture operation IHS parameters that comprise redundancy, disaster recover (DR) enablement, virtual machine (VM) priorities, workload types, installed components, alerts that comprise Central Processing Unit (CPU) errors, and alert criticality level transitions captured by IHS logs;
derive a current Mean Time To Resolve/Replace (MTTR) for the (IHS), at least in part, by a trained Machine Learning (ML) model configured to determine the current MTTR for the at least one IHS, based, at least in part, upon component replacements and time taken for transition between alert criticality levels determined from the IHS logs; and
predict a Service Level Agreement (SLA) category for the at least one IHS, and map the predicted SLA category to a warranty SLA category, at least in part, by a trained Deep Learning Neural Network (DLNN) configured to predict the SLA category for the at least one IHS and map the predicted SLA category to a warranty SLA category, based, at least in part, upon both of: the operational IHS parameters, and weights and biases in the DLNN assigned to warranty parameters and SLA categories;
select one or more warranty that provides a lower MTTR than the current MTTR, based, at least in part, upon the mapped SLA category; and
reduce the current MTTR for the at least one IHS, based at least in part, upon the one or more warranty that provides the lower MTTR.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified below, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. These limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claim recite a mental process (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract are also considered mathematical concepts at least because the above limitations derive a current Mean Time To Resolve/Replace (MTTR) using a model and data comprising errors and priorities, predict the SLA category based on the operational parameters and weights and biases, and reducing the current MTTR based upon the one or more warranty that provides the lower MTTR. These limitations are similar to “organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations” which was determined to be a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The Examiner notes that “[t]here is not particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word ‘calculating’ in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of ‘determining’ a variable or number using mathematical methods or ‘performing’ a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculation when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)). Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a commercial and/or legal activities that falls within the certain method of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because commercial and/or legal activities are related to commerce and economy, a commercial interaction (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
In Step 2A Prong Two, these additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) amount adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) does not integrate the judicial exception similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated (e.g., “CPU” errors, “Virtual Machine” priorities, “IHS” workload) does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment (e.g., in a computer environment) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses 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 claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. (Step 2A Prong Two, No).
In Step 2B, the additional also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. However, unless an Examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, now in MPEP 2106). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) (Step 2B, No).
Claims 2-5 and 20-21 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes).
Claim 2 recites the additional elements of “IHS”. Claim 3 recites the additional elements of “training”, “ML”, “CPU”, and “VM”. Claim 4 recites the additional elements of ‘the instructions, upon execution by the processor, cause the system to perform further operations that comprise”, “IHS” and “for a plurality of IHS components”. Claim 5 recites the additional elements of “wherein the instructions, upon execution by the processor, cause the system to perform further operations that comprise” and “natural language processing”. Claim 20 recites the additional elements of “wherein the at least one IHS further comprises a plurality of IHSs”. However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 6 and 19 recites further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., commercial interaction, fundamental economic practice or principle, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) and mental processes). Claim 6 recites the additional elements of “wherein the instructions, upon execution by the processor, cause the system to perform further operations comprising” and “from a warranty server”. Claim 19 recites the additional element of “wherein the instructions, upon execution by the processor, cause the system to perform further operations comprising”. However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 13 recites (additional elements underlined):
A method, comprising:
determining if an Information Handling System (IHS) component changed, using at least a serial number obtained from scans of the IHS via a communication network to capture operational IHS parameters before an IHS repair and after the IHS repair, wherein the operational IHS parameters further comprise redundancy, disaster recovery (DR) enablement, virtual machine (VM) priorities, workload types, installed components, alerts that comprise Central Processing Unit (CPU) errors, and alert criticality level transitions captured by IHS logs;
in response to determining that an IHS component changed, deriving a current MTTR for the IHS, at least in part, by a trained Machine Learning (ML) model configured to determine the current MTTR for the IHS, based, at least in part, upon component replacement and time taken for transition between alert criticality levels determined from the IHS logs;
predicting a Service Level Agreement (SLA) category for the IHS, and mapping the predicted SLA category to a warranty SLA category, at least in part, by a trained Deep Learning Neural Network (DLNN) configured to predict the SLA category for the IHS and map the predicted SLA category to a warranty SLA category, based, at least in part, upon both of: the operational IHS parameters, and weights and biases in the DLNN assigned to warranty parameters and SLA categories;
selecting one or more warranty that provides a lower MTTR than the current MTTR, based, at least in part, upon the mapped warranty SLA category; and
reducing the current MTTR for the at least one IHS, based, at least in part, upon the one or more warranty that provides the lower MTTR.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 13 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes). The additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 14-17 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 13 (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes).
Claim 14 recites the additional elements of “IHS”. Claim 15 recites the additional elements of “training”, “ML”, “CPU”, and “VM”. Claim 16 recites the additional elements of “IHS”. Claim 17 recites the additional elements of “generating by the IHS”. However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 18 recites further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 13 (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., commercial interaction, fundamental economic practice or principle, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) and mental processes). Claim 18 recites the additional element of “from a warranty server”. However, this additional element also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 22 recites (additional elements underlined):
An article of manufacture, that comprises a non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured to be operably coupled with at least one processor, the non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured to retrievably store processor executable program instructions accessible to the at least one processor, the processor executable program instructions configured to cause a system to perform operations that comprise:
periodically scan at least one Information Handing System (IHS) via a communication network to capture operational IHS parameters that comprise redundancy, disaster recovery (DR) enablement, virtual machine (VM) priorities, workload types, installed components, alerts that comprise Central Processing Unit (CPU) errors, and alert criticality level transitions captured by IHS logs;
derive a current Mean Time to Resolve/Replace (MTTR) for the at least one IHS, at least in part, by a trained Machine Learning (ML) model configured to determine the current MTTR for the at least one IHS, based, at least in part, upon component replacements and time taken for transition between alert criticality levels determined from the IHS logs;
predict a Service Level Agreement (SLA) category for the at least one IHS, and map the predicted SLA category to a warranty SLA category, at least in part, by a trained Deep Learning Neural Network (DLNN) configured to predict the SLA category for the at least one IHS and map the predicted SLA category to a warranty SLA category, based, at least in part, upon both of: the operational IHS parameters, and weights and biases in the DLNN assigned to the warranty parameters and SLA categories;
select one or more warranty that provides a lower MTTR that the current MTTR, based, at least in part, upon the mapped warranty SLA category; and
reduce the current MTTR for the at least one IHS, based, at least in part, upon the one or more warranty that provides the lower MTTR.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 22 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes). The additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 25-26 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 22 (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes).
Claim 25 recites the additional elements of “wherein the non-transitory computer readable storage medium further comprises processor executable program instructions configured to cause the system to perform operations further comprising”, “IHS”, “ML”, and “VM”. Claim 26 recites the additional elements of “wherein the at least one IHS further comprises a plurality of IHSs configured to operate in a data center environment, and wherein the non-transitory computer readable storage medium further comprises processor executable program instructions configured to cause the system to perform operations further comprising”, “for each of the plurality of IHSs “, “trained ML”, “of the plurality of IHSs through the communication network”, “for each IHS”. However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that after an exhaustive search, the claims currently overcome prior art. While the prior art teach some of the elements of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have arrived at Applicant’s claimed invention unless one was using Applicant’s claims and specification as a roadmap, thus using impermissible hindsight. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
Dinwiddie et al. (US 2019/0213600 A1) discloses systems and methods for determining a failure rate or time period for anticipated failure for a component of a product or the product itself utilizing data sets comprising a product identifier, a component identifier, and user identifier. Product warrant registration is accomplished using the product or component identifier with a warranty identifier that enables determination of in-use date of a particular product or component, which results in more accurate determinations of component failure rates and warranty periods. Dinwiddie also discloses the use of neural networks for identifying eligible parts and services. However, Dinwiddie does not appear to disclose the claims as currently amended.
Jackson (US 2012/0179824 A1) discloses a system and method of brokering cloud computing resources and the use of Service Level Agreements (SLA). However, Jackson also does not appear disclose the claims as currently amended.
Singh et al. (US 2019/0171961 A1) discloses methods and apparatus for predicting machine failures. Singh also analyzes computer alert data and warranty data. However, Singh also does not appear disclose the claims as currently amended.
Logan (US 2008/0103785 A1) discloses a method and system for quoting a purchase price for a warranty. However, Logan also does not appear disclose the claims as currently amended.
Merkin et al. (US 2003/0074294 A1) discloses a computer system warranty upgrade method and apparatus. When a warranty upgrade is desired, the computer requesting a warranty upgrade sends its configuration information to a remove warranty server computer. The warranty server prepares a warranty price quote specific to the particular configuration of the requesting computer. When the price quote is paid, the warranty server encrypts and transmits a warranty authorization to the requesting computer. The warranty authorization includes warranty type, duration, the specific configuration warranted and an identification number unique to the requesting computer. However, Merkin also does not appear disclose the claims as currently amended.
Green (US 2012/0221733 A1) discloses a data center management system that includes a data center customer profile corresponding to a data center customer, where the data center customer profile includes a service level agreement (SLA) and a data center resource usage model. Green also discloses the use of plurality of devices, virtual machines, and warranties. However, Green also does not appear disclose the claims as currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks Applicant Argues:
Argument A: “Amended Claim 1 does not Recite any of the ‘Abstract Idea Groupings’ Enumerated by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), and Therefore, is not Directed to an Abstract Idea. […] These elements recited by amended claim 1 define operations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind. That is, the human mind is not equipped to detect hardware-related status information such as CPU errors and VM priorities. […] Furthermore, amended claim 1 clearly does not recite any element of a mathematical concept, a certain method of organizing human activity, fundamental economic concept, or managing interactions between people.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). That is, other than reciting the additional elements, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. These limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). Therefore, the claims do recite a mental process.
The limitations outlined that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One also describe or set forth a commercial activity that falls within the certain method of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because commercial activities are related to commerce and economy, a commercial interaction (e.g., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, the claims recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract in Step 2A Prong One are also considered mathematical concepts at least because the above limitations derive a current Mean Time To Resolve/Replace (MTTR) using a model and data comprising errors and priorities, predict the SLA category based on the operational parameters and weights and biases, and reducing the current MTTR based upon the one or more warranty that provides the lower MTTR. These limitations are similar to “organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations” which was determined to be a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The Examiner notes that “[t]here is not particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word ‘calculating’ in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of ‘determining’ a variable or number using mathematical methods or ‘performing’ a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculation when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)). Therefore, the claims recites a mathematical concept (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The Examiner notes that the limitations “CPU” and “VM” are considered additional elements, and are addressed in Steps 2A Prong Two and in Step 2B of the analysis.
Argument B: “Amended Claim 1 Relates to an Improvement in Data Center Technology. […] However, this argument by the Office Action overlooks the fact that the recited components are configured according to the claim language to avoid extended downtime due to the time required to replace a failed critical part, such as a CPU, memory, backplane, or system board failure. […] Elements recited by amended claim 1 integrate the claimed features into a practical application at least because they are configured to the claim language to reduce unnecessary downtime for mission critical systems, disclosed by Applicant’s Specification in at least ¶[0018]-[0022].”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention does not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer. Unlike in Enfish in which the claimed invention achieved other benefits over conventional databases such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements that provided improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, here 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 improve any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. The extended downtime is the result of not having a warranty that reduces the current MTTR. Warranties are considered a commercial and/or legal interaction because they involve agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Warranties are also considered as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, the alleged improvement is entirely in the realm of the abstract idea.
Argument C: “The claim also recites features that are not well understood or routine in the data center management technology field, as the Office Action admits by indicating ‘the claims currently overcome prior art.’”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Office Action does not take the position that any of the additional elements amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two that would warrant an analysis in Step 2B to determine that the additional element also amounts to simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. However, unless an Examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, now in MPEP 2106). The Examiner also notes that “novelty of any element or step in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the ¶ 101 categories of possible patentable subject matter” (MPEP 2106.05(I)). Therefore, the claims as currently amended still do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
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 SAM REFAI whose telephone number is (313)446-4822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on 571-270-3948. 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.
/SAM REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621