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 Amendments
Examiner reconsidered the subject matter recited in the claims and has withdrawn the previous 35 USC 101 rejections to claim 4. Claim 4 recites “initiating a reconfiguration in the network for the one or more second network attributes to be acquired.” This is not direct to a mental process or abstract idea.
The amendments and arguments are not persuasive over the previous 35 USC 101 rejections to claims 1, 3, 5-20, and 24. A mental process is described as an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. Processing network attributes using a model to generate output is functionally equivalent to an evaluation. Doing an evaluation using processing circuitry is equivalent to implementing the abstract idea on a computer and using a computer as a tool to process.
Applicant argues it is “impossible for the human mind to process the network attributes of a network as required by the method” because digital communications consist of millions/billions of binary values which are not readable by a human being. Remarks at 15. The claims do not place these limitations on the method and in fact can be done in “one… network attributes” and “one… iterations.” See Claim 1 (01/14/2026). Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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 prior arts do not teach nor suggest the limitations of claim 4, “[t]he method as claimed in claim 1, the method comprising: initiating a reconfiguration in the network for the one or more second network attributes to be acquired.” Generally, the prior arts teach methods for detecting and analyzing network faults. The claimed invention builds on the prior arts and outlines a specific method.
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, 3, 5-20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “[a] method performed by processing circuitry of a first entity for processing one or more network attributes of a network, the method comprising: processing one or more first network attributes of the network using a first machine learning model to generate a first output comprising information about an event in the network; if an estimated confidence level for the first output is less than a confidence level threshold, processing the one or more first network attributes using a second machine learning model to generate a second output , the second output is being indicative of one or more second network attributes of the network to process using the first machine learning model; repeating the method for one or more iterations, for each iteration of the one or more iterations, if a second output is generated, the one or more second network attributes from the iteration are processed using the first machine learning model in the subsequent iteration.”
The limitation of “processing one or more first network attributes of the network using a first machine learning model to generate a first output comprising information about an event in the network,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “if an estimated confidence level for the first output is less than a confidence level threshold, processing the one or more first network attributes using a second machine learning model to generate a second output , the second output is being indicative of one or more second network attributes of the network to process using the first machine learning model,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “repeating the method for one or more iterations, for each iteration of the one or more iterations, if a second output is generated, the one or more second network attributes from the iteration are processed using the first machine learning model in the subsequent iteration,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer… [and] network” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer… [and] network” language, “processing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper processing data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer… [and] network” to enact processing. The computer and network in all steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a computer and network to enact the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites “[t]he method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the method is repeated until the confidence level for the first output is equal to or greater than the confidence level threshold.”
The limitation of “repeated until the confidence level for the first output is equal to or greater than the confidence level threshold,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer… [and] network” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer… [and] network” language, “processing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper processing data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer… [and] network” to enact processing. The computer and network in all steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a computer and network to enact the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites “[t]he method as claimed in claim1, the method comprising: if the estimated confidence level for the first output is equal to or greater than the confidence level threshold, generating a report on the first output; and if the estimated confidence level for the first output is less than the confidence level threshold, generating a report on the second output.”
The limitation of “if the estimated confidence level for the first output is equal to or greater than the confidence level threshold,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “if the estimated confidence level for the first output is less than the confidence level threshold,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer… [and] network” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer… [and] network” language, “processing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper processing data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer… [and] network” to enact processing. The computer and network in all steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim also recites “generating a report on the first output.” Extra-solution activity.
The claim also recites “generating a report on the second output.” Extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a computer and network to enact the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites “[t]he method as claimed in claim 5, wherein: the report on the first output comprises information indicative of the one or more first network attributes.”
The limitation of “the method,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer… [and] network” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer… [and] network” language, “processing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper processing data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer… [and] network” to enact processing. The computer and network in all steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim also recites “the report on the first output comprises information indicative of the one or more first network attributes.” Extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a computer and network to enact the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites “[t]he method as claimed in claim1, wherein: the one or more first network attributes and the first output are processed using the second machine learning model to generate the second output.”
The limitation of “the one or more first network attributes and the first output are processed using the second machine learning model to generate the second output,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer… [and] network” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer… [and] network” language, “processing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper processing data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer… [and] network” to enact processing. The computer and network in all steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a computer and network to enact the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites “[t]he method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the information about the event in the network comprises any one or more of: information indicative of a time of the event in the network; information indicative of a level within the network at which the event occurs; and information indicative of a cause of the event in the network.”
The limitation of “the method,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer… [and] network” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer… [and] network” language, “processing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper processing data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer… [and] network” to enact processing. The computer and network in all steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim also recites “the information about the event in the network comprises any one or more of: information indicative of a time of the event in the network; information indicative of a level within the network at which the event occurs; and information indicative of a cause of the event in the network.” Extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a computer and network to enact the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites “[t]he method as claimed in claim 8, wherein: the level within the network is any one or more of: a level at which one or more network nodes are deployed in the network; a level at which one or more computing platforms are deployed in the network; a level at which virtualization or containerization occurs in the network; and a level at which one or more services are hosted or executed in the network.”
The limitation of “the method,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer… [and] network” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer… [and] network” language, “processing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper processing data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer… [and] network” to enact processing. The computer and network in all steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim also recites “a level at which one or more network nodes are deployed in the network; a level at which one or more computing platforms are deployed in the network; a level at which virtualization or containerization occurs in the network; and a level at which one or more services are hosted or executed in the network.” Extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a computer and network to enact the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites “[t]he method as claimed in claim 9, wherein: the information about the event in the network comprises, for one or more levels within the network, a percentage value indicative of a likelihood that the event in the network occurs at that level within the network; and the highest percentage value is the information indicative of the level within the network at which the event occurs.”
The limitation of “the method,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer… [and] network” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer… [and] network” language, “processing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper processing data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer… [and] network” to enact processing. The computer and network in all steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim also recites “the information about the event in the network comprises, for one or more levels within the network, a percentage value indicative of a likelihood that the event in the network occurs at that level within the network; and the highest percentage value is the information indicative of the level within the network at which the event occurs.” Extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a computer and network to enact the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites “[t]he method as claimed in claim1, wherein: all of the one or more second network attributes are different from the one or more first network attributes; or the one or more second network attributes comprise at least one of the one or more first network attributes and at least one other network attribute of the network.”
The limitation of “the method,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer… [and] network” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer… [and] network” language, “processing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper processing data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer… [and] network” to enact processing. The computer and network in all steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim also recites “all of the one or more second network attributes are different from the one or more first network attributes; or the one or more second network attributes comprise at least one of the one or more first network attributes and at least one other network attribute of the network.” Extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a computer and network to enact the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites “[t]he method as claimed in claim1, wherein: the one or more first network attributes comprise two or more first network attributes that are acquired from different locations in the network; and the one or more second network attributes comprise two or more second network attributes that are acquired from different locations in the network.”
The limitation of “the method,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer… [and] network” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer… [and] network” language, “processing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper processing data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer… [and] network” to enact processing. The computer and network in all steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim also recites “the one or more first network attributes comprise two or more first network attributes that are acquired from different locations in the network; and the one or more second network attributes comprise two or more second network attributes that are acquired from different locations in the network.” Extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a computer and network to enact the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites “[t]he method as claimed in claim1, wherein: the one or more first network attributes are acquired from any one or more of a log file, a trace file, and a performance management counter; and the one or more second network attributes are acquired from any one or more of a log file, a trace file, and a performance management counter.”
The limitation of “the method,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer… [and] network” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer… [and] network” language, “processing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper processing data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer… [and] network” to enact processing. The computer and network in all steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim also recites “the one or more first network attributes are acquired from any one or more of a log file, a trace file, and a performance management counter; and the one or more second network attributes are acquired from any one or more of a log file, a trace file, and a performance management counter.” Extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a computer and network to enact the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites “[t]he method as claimed in claim1, wherein: the one or more first network attributes comprise at least two first network attributes and the at least two first network attributes are in a time series; and the one or more second network attributes comprise at least two second network attributes and the at least two second network attributes are in a time series.”
The limitation of “the method,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer… [and] network” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer… [and] network” language, “processing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper processing data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer… [and] network” to enact processing. The computer and network in all steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim also recites “the one or more first network attributes comprise at least two first network attributes and the at least two first network attributes are in a time series; and the one or more second network attributes comprise at least two second network attributes and the at least two second network attributes are in a time series.” Extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a computer and network to enact the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites “[t]he method as claimed in claim 1 wherein: the one or more first network attributes comprise at least two first network attributes and each of the at least two first network attributes have the same time stamp; and the one or more second network attributes comprise at least two second network attributes and each of the at least two second network attributes have the same time stamp.”
The limitation of “the method,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer… [and] network” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer… [and] network” language, “processing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper processing data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer… [and] network” to enact processing. The computer and network in all steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim also recites “the one or more first network attributes comprise at least two first network attributes and each of the at least two first network attributes have the same time stamp; and the one or more second network attributes comprise at least two second network attributes and each of the at least two second network attributes have the same time stamp.” Extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a computer and network to enact the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 recites “[t]he method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the one or more first network attributes comprise at least two first network attributes that are in different formats; and the method comprises converting the at least two first network attributes into the same format; and the one or more second network attributes comprise at least two second network attributes that are in different formats; and the method comprises converting the at least two second network attributes into the same format.”
The limitation of “the method,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer… [and] network” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer… [and] network” language, “processing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper processing data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer… [and] network” to enact processing. The computer and network in all steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim also recites “the one or more first network attributes comprise at least two first network attributes that are in different formats; and the method comprises converting the at least two first network attributes into the same format; and the one or more second network attributes comprise at least two second network attributes that are in different formats; and the method comprises converting the at least two second network attributes into the same format.” Extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a computer and network to enact the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 recites “[t]he method as claimed in claim1, wherein: processing the one or more first network attributes using the second machine learning model to generate the second output comprises: using the second machine learning model to: compare the one or more first network attributes to one or more second outputs previously generated using the second machine learning model, wherein each previously generated second output is indicative of one or more second network attributes of the network previously processed using the first machine learning model; and generate the second output based on a result of the comparison.”
The limitation of “processing the one or more first network attributes using the second machine learning model to generate the second output comprises: using the second machine learning model to: compare the one or more first network attributes to one or more second outputs previously generated using the second machine learning model, wherein each previously generated second output is indicative of one or more second network attributes of the network previously processed using the first machine learning model,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer… [and] network” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer… [and] network” language, “processing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper processing data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer… [and] network” to enact processing. The computer and network in all steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim also recites “generate the second output based on a result of the comparison.” Extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a computer and network to enact the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 recites “[a] computer-implemented method for training a machine learning model to process one or more network attributes of a network, the method comprising: training a first machine learning model to process one or more first network attributes of the network to generate a first output comprising information about an event in the network; and training a second machine learning model to process the one or more first network attributes to generate a second output if an estimated confidence level for the first output is less than a confidence level threshold, the second output is being indicative of one or more second network attributes of the network to process using the first machine learning model, if a second output is generated, the one or more second network attributes from an iteration are processed using the first machine learning model in a subsequent iteration.”
The limitation of “training a first machine learning model to process one or more first network attributes of the network to generate a first output comprising information about an event in the network,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “training a second machine learning model to process the one or more first network attributes to generate a second output if an estimated confidence level for the first output is less than a confidence level threshold, the second output is being indicative of one or more second network attributes of the network to process using the first machine learning model, if a second output is generated, the one or more second network attributes from an iteration are processed using the first machine learning model in a subsequent iteration,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer… [and] network” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer… [and] network” language, “processing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper processing data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer… [and] network” to enact processing. The computer and network in all steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a computer and network to enact the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 recites “[t]he method as claimed in claim 18, wherein: the first machine learning model is trained using a first training dataset, wherein the first training dataset comprises information indicative of a past occurrence of the event in the network and one or more first network attributes of the network corresponding to the past occurrence of the event; and the second machine learning model is trained using a second training dataset, wherein the second training dataset comprises the one or more first network attributes of the network corresponding to the past occurrence of the event and one or more second network attributes of the network corresponding to the past occurrence of the event.”
The limitation of “the first machine learning model is trained using a first training dataset, wherein the first training dataset comprises information indicative of a past occurrence of the event in the network and one or more first network attributes of the network corresponding to the past occurrence of the event,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “the second machine learning model is trained using a second training dataset, wherein the second training dataset comprises the one or more first network attributes of the network corresponding to the past occurrence of the event and one or more second network attributes of the network corresponding to the past occurrence of the event,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer… [and] network” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer… [and] network” language, “processing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper processing data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer… [and] network” to enact processing. The computer and network in all steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a computer and network to enact the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 recites “[t]he method as claimed in claim 19, wherein: the information indicative of the past occurrence of the event has a time stamp indicative of a time of the past occurrence of the event; each first network attribute of the one or more first network attributes has a time stamp indicative of a time at which the first network attribute was recorded; and for each first network attribute of the one or more first network attributes, the time at which the first network attribute was recorded is a time that falls within a predefined time interval that precedes the time of the past occurrence of the event.”
The limitation of “the method,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer… [and] network” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer… [and] network” language, “processing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper processing data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer… [and] network” to enact processing. The computer and network in all steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim also recites “the information indicative of the past occurrence of the event has a time stamp indicative of a time of the past occurrence of the event; each first network attribute of the one or more first network attributes has a time stamp indicative of a time at which the first network attribute was recorded; and for each first network attribute of the one or more first network attributes, the time at which the first network attribute was recorded is a time that falls within a predefined time interval that precedes the time of the past occurrence of the event.” Extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a computer and network to enact the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 24 is rejected based on similar rationale given to claim 1.
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 JONATHAN D GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)431-0699. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 A.M.-4:00 P.M..
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 P 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.
/JONATHAN D GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113