DETAILED ACTION
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 1-6, 9-14, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite:
storing configuration information related to each of a plurality of devices included in a system;
identifying configuration information related to a first device for which an agent for collecting information is not set, among the plurality of devices;
identifying a second device, which is a device related to configuration information similar to the configuration information related to the first device and for which the agent is set, among the plurality of devices; and
associating operation information of the second device, which includes information collected by the agent, with the first device.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 1 is a machine.
Claim 9 is a process.
Claim 17 is an article of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘identifying’ limitations in # 2 and 3 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), are mental processes that cover performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses a person making an observation associated with data.
The ‘associating’ limitation in # 4 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “associating” in the context of this claim encompasses the person performing an evaluation associated with data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘storing’ limitation in # 1 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “storing” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering in a stored format. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, one or more of the claims recite the following additional elements:
a memory (Claim 1),
at least one processor (Claim 1),
a plurality of devices (Claims 1, 9, and 17),
a system (Claims 1, 9, and 17),
a first device (Claims 1, 9, and 17),
a second device (Claims 1, 9, and 17),
a computer-readable storage medium (Claim 17), and
a computer (Claim 17).
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply an exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply an exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally, with regards to # 1 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claims 2, 10, and 18 recite:
identifying, in the identifying the second device, a device related to configuration information in which a similarity according to a number of items common to the configuration information related to the first device and the stored configuration information is equal to or more than a threshold value.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 2 is a machine.
Claim 10 is a process.
Claim 18 is an article of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘identifying’ limitation in # 5 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an observation associated with data.
Claims 3, 11, and 19 recite:
including, in the stored configuration information, configuration information relevant to hardware of each of the plurality of devices and configuration information relevant to software;
identifying, in the identifying the configuration information, configuration information relevant to hardware related to the first device and configuration information relevant to software related to the first device; and
identifying, in the identifying the second device, a device related to configuration information similar to the configuration information relevant to the hardware related to the first device and a device related to configuration information similar to the configuration information relevant to the software related to the first device as the second device.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 3 is a machine.
Claim 11 is a process.
Claim 19 is an article of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘identifying’ limitations in # 7 and 8 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), are mental processes that cover performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an observation associated with data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘including’ limitation in # 6 above, as claimed and under BRI, merely further describes the claimed ‘stored configuration information’ of Claims 1, 9, and 17, respectively, in terms of one or more mere fields of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 4, 12, and 20 recite:
…associating operation information relevant to hardware of the second device similar to the configuration information relevant to the hardware related to the first device with the first device; and
associating operation information relevant to software of the second device similar to the configuration information relevant to the software related to the first device with the first device.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 4 is a machine.
Claim 12 is a process.
Claim 20 is an article of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘associating’ limitations in # 9 and 10 above, as claimed and under BRI, are mental processes that cover performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “associating” in the context of this claim encompasses the person performing an evaluation associated with data.
Claims 5, 13, and 21 recite:
outputting the operation information of the second device associated with the first device when receiving a request for outputting the operation information of the first device.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 5 is a machine.
Claim 13 is a process.
Claim 21 is an article of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. The abstract idea(s) of Claims 1, 9, and 17 is/are the same as the abstract idea(s) of Claims 5, 13, and 21, respectively.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘outputting’ limitation in # 11 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “outputting” in the context of this claim encompasses, e.g., merely displaying data as a type of data manipulation. See ¶ 0042 of the instant specification and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to # 11 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claims 6, 14, and 22 recite:
detecting an anomaly that has occurred in one of the plurality of devices included in the system; and
outputting, in the outputting, information relevant to the first device when the one of the plurality of devices in which the anomaly has occurred is the second device.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 6 is a machine.
Claim 14 is a process.
Claim 22 is an article of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘detecting’ limitation in # 12 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “detecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an observation associated with data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘outputting’ limitation in # 13 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “outputting” in the context of this claim encompasses, e.g., merely displaying data as a type of data manipulation. See ¶ 0042 of the instant specification and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to # 13 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
For at least the reasoning provided above, Claims 1-6, 9-14, and 17-22 are patent ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 9-14, and 17-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 7, 8, 15, 16, 23, and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The elements of independent Claims 1, 9, and 17 were neither found through a search of the prior art nor considered obvious by the Examiner. In particular, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations and in the context of their claims as a whole:
Claim 1: “…identify configuration information related to a first device for which an agent for collecting information is not set, among the plurality of devices;…associate operation information of the second device, which includes information collected by the agent, with the first device.”
Claim 9: “…identifying configuration information related to a first device for which an agent for collecting information is not set, among the plurality of devices;…associating operation information of the second device, which includes information collected by the agent, with the first device.”
Claim 17: “…processing of identifying configuration information related to a first device for which an agent for collecting information is not set, among the plurality of devices;…processing of associating operation information of the second device, which includes information collected by the agent, with the first device.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/24/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Remarks argue that:
Applicant respectfully submits these features involve technical complexity that could not be performed as a mental process. For example, "identifying configuration information related to a first device for which an agent for collecting information is not set, among the plurality of devices; identifying a second device, which is a device related to configuration information similar to the configuration information related to the first device and for which the agent is set, among the plurality of devices; and associating operation information of the second device, which includes information collected by the agent, with the first device," involve technical complexity such that the features are not able to be performed by a human, even with pen and paper. Further, these features are also not directed to mathematical concepts or certain methods of organizing human activity.
Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits these features integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, ¶ 0004 of the specification identifies a technical problem in that devices for which an agent cannot be directly set are not able to be monitored. The claimed features address this technical problem and achieve concrete technical effects, including improving a monitoring level and improving accuracy of anomaly detection, by associating operation information of devices with similar configuration.
[For Step 2B,] as acknowledged in the Office Action, the prior art does not teach or suggest the features of independent claim 1. For example, U.S. Patent No. US 10,678,574 B1 (Carl), as cited in the Office Action, merely describes configuration management technology and does not disclose technical elements of the present invention, including dynamic information association based on agent settability, mutual utilization of operation information between similar devices, and preventive countermeasure implementation. Therefore, claim 1 provides an "inventive concept," and does not simply append well-understood, routine or conventional activities. Accordingly, independent claim 1 recites significantly more than any allegedly abstract idea.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regards to A and B above, the Examiner proposes, under BRI, a scenario that reads on the claims with regards to 35 U.S.C. 101 subject matter eligibility (SME):
A printout on paper is provided which shows simple configuration information of two devices:
Device A: agent 1 is not installed, disk type 1 is installed, and disk type 2 is installed.
Device B: agent 1 is installed, disk type 1 is installed, and disk type 2 is installed.
A person could simply look over this bulleted information and associate Device A with Device B because they have similar configurations.
In this scenario, a computer is not even used; only a printout on paper is provided. If a computer is not even necessary, how can this scenario imply “technical complexity such that the features are not able to be performed by a human, even with pen and paper?” Applicant has provided nothing further explaining why the current claims are technically complex, and the Examiner respectfully asserts that his scenario is reasonably capable of being performed in the mind.
With regards to C above, the Examiner respectfully points to MPEP 2106.05(I):
Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101"). As made clear by the courts, the " ‘novelty’ of any element or steps 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 possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.").
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 JOSEPH KUDIRKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7126. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5pm ET.
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, Ashish Thomas, can be reached at (571) 272-0631. 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.
/JOSEPH R KUDIRKA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114