Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5,8,9,11-13,18 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 the human mind.
Regarding claim 1, with the exception of the limitation ‘at least one processor’, the claim is directed to mental processes.
The limitation ‘determine whether the performance index satisfies a predetermined performance index criterion; determine whether the hardware index satisfies a predetermined hardware index criterion; execute, based on the performance index and the hardware index, abnormality determination with regard to an occurrence of abnormality in the service providing system; execute the abnormality determination so that a degree about the abnormality is lower when it is determined that the predetermined hardware index criterion is satisfied and that the predetermined performance index criterion is not satisfied, than when it is determined that the predetermined hardware index criterion and the predetermined performance index criterion are both satisfied’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘at least one processor; wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the abnormality determination based on the performance index and a learning model that has learned a relationship between the performance index for training and an occurrence of the abnormality’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element ‘acquire, based on a utilization situation about a service providing system for providing a predetermined service, a performance index about performance of the predetermined service; wherein the performance index is acquired periodically; wherein the performance index is an actual number of transactions, a number of new users, a number of active users, an access count or a login count; acquire a hardware index about hardware included in the service providing system’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), in this case data gathering.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation ‘wherein the service providing system is a system for providing a plurality of services each of which is the predetermined service, wherein the at least one processor is configured to’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)): ‘acquire the performance index of each of the plurality of services’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), in this case data gathering, and ‘execute the abnormality determination of at least one of the plurality of services based on the performance index of each of the plurality of services’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation ‘execute the abnormality determination for each of the plurality of services that is a target of the abnormality determination, based on a relationship between the performance index of the each of the plurality of services and an overall performance index of the plurality of services’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation ‘execute the abnormality determination for each of the plurality of services that is a target of the abnormality determination, based on a relationship between the performance index of the each of the plurality of services and the performance index of another of the plurality of services’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation ‘determine, for each of the plurality of services, whether the performance index of the each of the plurality of services satisfies an abnormality determination criterion about the abnormality determination; and execute the abnormality determination based on a type of the performance index that satisfies the abnormality determination criterion’ are mental processes – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation ‘acquire, in real time, the performance index of the predetermined service that is in operation’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), in this case data gathering, and ‘execute the abnormality determination in real time based on the performance index acquired in real time’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 9, with the exception of the limitation ‘at least one processor’, the claim is directed to mental processes.
The limitation ‘determine whether the performance index satisfies a predetermined performance index criterion; determine whether the hardware index satisfies a predetermined hardware index criterion; execute, based on the performance index and the hardware index, abnormality determination with regard to an occurrence of abnormality in a future; execute the abnormality determination so that a degree about the abnormality is lower when it is determined that the predetermined hardware index criterion is satisfied and that the predetermined performance index criterion is not satisfied, than when it is determined that the predetermined hardware index criterion and the predetermined performance index criterion are both satisfied’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘at least one processor; wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the abnormality determination based on the performance index and a learning model that has learned a relationship between the performance index for training and an occurrence of the abnormality’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element ‘acquire, based on a utilization situation about a service providing system for providing a predetermined service, a performance index about performance of the predetermined service; wherein the performance index is acquired periodically; wherein the performance index is an actual number of transactions, a number of new users, a number of active users, an access count or a login count; acquire a hardware index about hardware included in the service providing system’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), in this case data gathering.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation ‘execute the abnormality determination based on the performance index and a learning model that has learned a relationship between the performance index for training and an occurrence of the abnormality’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The learning model is defined at a high-level of generality.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation ‘wherein the service providing system is a system for providing a plurality of services each of which is the predetermined service, wherein the learning model has learned a relationship between the performance index for training of each of the plurality of services and an occurrence of the abnormality, wherein the at least one processor is configured to acquire the performance index of each of the plurality of services, and execute the abnormality determination of at least one of the plurality of services, based on the performance index of each of the plurality of services and the learning model’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The learning model is defined at a high-level of generality.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation ‘wherein the service providing system that is relatively old and called an old system and the service providing system that is relatively new and called a new system coexist, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)) ‘execute the abnormality determination of the new system based on an old system index which is the performance index based on the old system’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 13, with the exception of the limitation ‘at least one processor’, the claim is directed to mental processes.
The limitation ‘determine whether the performance index satisfies a predetermined performance index criterion; determine whether the hardware index satisfies a predetermined hardware index criterion; execute, based on at least the one of the payment index, the transaction index, and the membership index, the abnormality determination with regard to an occurrence of abnormality in the service providing system; execute the abnormality determination so that a degree about the abnormality is lower when it is determined that the predetermined hardware index criterion is satisfied and that the predetermined performance index criterion is not satisfied, than when it is determined that the predetermined hardware index criterion and the predetermined performance index criterion are both satisfied’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘at least one processor; wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the abnormality determination based on the performance index and a learning model that has learned a relationship between the performance index for training and an occurrence of the abnormality’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element ‘acquire, based on a utilization situation about a service providing system for providing a predetermined service, a performance index about performance of the predetermined service, at least one of a payment index about payment in the predetermined service, a transaction index about transactions in an electronic commerce transaction service, and a membership index about membership of the predetermined service; wherein the performance index is acquired periodically; wherein the performance index is an actual number of transactions, a number of new users, a number of active users, an access count or a login count; acquire a hardware index about hardware included in the service providing system; wherein the payment index is a payment amount, a total value of payment amounts, an average value of payment amounts, a number of payment transactions, a payment destination, or a payment date and time, or a combination thereof; wherein the transaction index is the number of pieces purchased, a purchase amount, a sum of purchase amounts, an article of commerce added to a shopping cart, a cart abandonment count, or an article of commerce added to a bookmark, or a combination thereof; and the membership index is a number of members, an amount of change in the number of members, a membership withdrawal count, or an amount of change in the membership withdrawal count, or a combination thereof’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), in this case data gathering.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations ‘train the machine learning model using a plurality of pairs of an input part indicating the performance index and an output part indicating whether an abnormality is occurring; and executing training of the machine learning model by adjusting a plurality of parameters of the machine learning model so that the output part is output when the input part is input into the machine learning model’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
There is no prior art rejection for claims 1-5,8,9,11-13,18 because of the adding of the newly added limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered. Concerning the 101 rejection, the 101 rejection still stands. Applicant’s arguments on page 11 concerning the ‘executing computer abnormality detection based on both the performance index and the hardware index as recited in claim 1 is a practical application because it overcomes the problems with existing systems…This is similar to ‘adjusting the values’ feature in Desjardin’’, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The ‘executing computer abnormality detection’ is able to be performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. The ‘adjusting the values’ feature of Desjardin is performed fully by a machine learning model. That is not the case in the currently presented claims. The ‘executing computer abnormality detection’ is able to performed in the human mind and a machine learning model, which is generically claimed with training. There is nothing being done with the information determined by the ’execute the abnormality determination’. Applicant’s arguments on page 12 of amending claim 1 with features of now-canceled claim 7 is not patent eligible. The human mind is able to determine a degree by observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. Applicant’s arguments on page 12 of amending claim 1 with features of now-canceled claim 10 is not patent eligible. The adding of the machine learning model and training of it is generically stated. These arguments and responses apply to claim 11. Claim 18 is merely generically training a machine learning model.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yolanda L Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-3653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30 am - 4 pm).
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 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 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.
/Yolanda L Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights