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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 1-20 have been submitted for examination.
Claims 1-20 have been rejected.
Analysis for the purpose of 101 rejection.
A method comprising: monitoring, by a system status monitoring module, executing on at least one processing device, at least one system status associated with an information system, wherein the information system comprises a plurality of system components; This step collects data
determining, by a system anomaly detection module executing on at least one processing device, a system score for the information system, based on a dynamic weighted calculation and an average performance evaluation, wherein the system score facilitates predicting an impending error before the error occurs on the information system, wherein determining the system score improves computer system reliability by enabling proactive error prevention that reduces system downtime and data loss; This step analyzes the collected data
determining, by a target component assignment module, executing on the at least one processing device, a plurality of targeted components that require log collection based on the system score, using a historical repository that maps risk levels of system statuses to specific system components, wherein the plurality of system components comprises the plurality of targeted components, wherein the targeted component selection optimizes system performance by reducing computational load and conserving memory resources through selective log collection, wherein a log collection optimization system comprises the system status monitoring module, the system anomaly detection module, and the target component assignment module; This step further analyzes the data
and invoking, by a log collection module executing on the at least one processing device, system log collection from only the targeted components to initiate the system log collection before the error occurs on the information system, wherein the proactive targeted log collection prevents loss of critical diagnostic data that facilitates system recovery and rood cause analysis wherein the method is performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory. This step takes an action based on the collected data and the first and second analysis
2. The method of Claim 1 wherein the at least one system status comprises at least one of Central Processing Unit (CPU) usage status, memory usage status, Input/Output (IO) load status, and capacity usage status. This step further defines the collected data
3. The method of Claim 1 wherein determining, by the system anomaly detection module, the system score for the information system comprises: determining the dynamic weighted calculation comprises weighting the at least one system status. This step further details the analysis
4. The method of Claim 3 wherein determining the dynamic weighted calculation comprises: defining a risk level for the at least one system status; determining a percentage range for the at least one system status; and utilizing the risk level and the percentage range to determine the weight of the at least one system status. This step further details the analysis
5. The method of Claim 2 further comprising: tuning the weight of the at least one system status to balance usage of the information system represented by the at least one system status. This step further details the analysis
6. The method of Claim 1 wherein determining, by the system anomaly detection module, the system score for the information system comprises: determining the average performance evaluation for the at least one system status. This step further details the analysis
7. The method of Claim 6 wherein determining the average performance evaluation for the at least one system status comprises: determining a usage weight for the at least one system status. This step further details the analysis
8. The method of Claim 7 further comprising: determining at least one periodic weight for the at least one system status, wherein the at least one periodic weight represents the at least one system status usage percentage at a period in time. This step further details the analysis .
9. The method of Claim 8 further comprising: tuning the at least one periodic weight to optimize the average performance evaluation. This step further details the analysis
10. The method of Claim 9 further comprising: setting a default weight for the at least one periodic weight. This step further details the analysis
11. The method of Claim 1 wherein determining, by the system anomaly detection module, the system score for the information system comprises: determining, by the system anomaly detection module, that the system score exceeds a threshold, indicating the impending error on the information system. This step further details the analysis
12. The method of Claim 1 wherein determining, by the target component assignment module, the plurality of targeted components that require log collection based on the system score comprises: maintaining a historical repository that associates historical errors with corresponding helpful error logs. This step further details the action
13. The method of Claim 1 wherein determining, by the target component assignment module, the plurality of targeted components that require log collection based on the system score comprises: maintaining a historical repository that associates historical errors with corresponding historical system status. This step further details the action
14. The method of Claim 1 wherein determining, by the target component assignment module, the plurality of targeted components that require log collection based on the system score comprises: mapping the risk level for the at least one system status to the respective target components. This step further details the analysis
15. The method of Claim 1 wherein determining, by the target component assignment module, the plurality of targeted components that require log collection based on the system score comprises: matching the risk level for the at least one system status to the respective target components to identify the plurality of targeted components. This step further details the analysis
16. The method of Claim 1 wherein invoking, by the log collection module, system log collection from the targeted components comprises: detecting, by the system anomaly detection module, that the system score exceeds a threshold; and triggering, by the system anomaly detection module, the log collection module to collect logs from the targeted components. This step further details the action
17. The method of Claim 1 further comprising: continuing to monitor the at least one system status until the system score exceeds a threshold. This step further details the data collection
The same is applicable to claims 18 19 20
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis
Step 1: Do the Claims Specify a Statutory Category?
Claims describe a method, system, and computer storage medium, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
The limitations describe processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., use of a processor or a generic computer). That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
The limitations involve collecting status monitoring data, analyzes the status monitoring data by applying math, and mathematical equations, and taking an action based on the analysis, this can all be performed by a human and thus the claims recite a mental process that is based on math and mathematical equations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the practical performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent claims further process the obtained data by further detailing the gathering of data in either a mathematical relationships way, mathematical formulas or equation way, and mathematical calculation way, and further details also taking the action. Each of the limitations in these dependent claims describes processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, contain math and mathematical equations/calculation directed to performing the abstract idea identified in the independent claims.
As explained in the October 2019 Update to the 2019 PEG, when determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), consideration must be given as to whether a claim recites a mathematical concept or merely includes limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. Dependent claims limitations describe performing various types of mathematical calculations/relations as ways for implementing the identified mental process in independent claims.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes the performance of mathematical calculations (even if a formula is not recited in the claim), then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, dependent claims each recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Independent Claims Indicate computer storage medium comprising instruction which are processor executable instructions, and a system comprising a memory and a processor, the memory storing a computer program executes steps of the method according to independent claims being implemented when the computer program is executed by the processor.
Even if the described methods are implemented on a computer, there is no indication that the combination of elements in the claim solves any particular technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing computer technology in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exceptions. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor or other generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s). The processor cited in the claim is described at a high level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The independent claims collect data analyze the collected data and take an action accordingly.
These limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering, processing of calculation by submitting the results of the calculation, and generically applying an evaluation based on the math, without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
The claims recite different mathematical relations and equation concepts, that can be performed by a human and are therefore directed to the identified judicial exception.
There is no indication that the combination of elements solves a technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using mathematical relation/equation/calculation in its ordinary capacity to apply the identified judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor or other generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s).
The dependent claims, further detail the data gathering and the math as applied to the obtained data. These claims contain no additional elements which would integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
as detailed in the analysis for Step 2A-Prong 2, independent claims contain additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea. The additional elements in the independent claims do not represent “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
The limitations pertaining to collecting status monitoring data, analyzes the status monitoring data by applying math, and mathematical equations, and taking an action based on the analysis describe insignificant extra-solution activity and are written at a high level in a generic manner without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken.
Therefore, these limitations recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas defined in the claim.
The dependent claims have no indication that the combination of elements solves a technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing mathematical concepts/ calculation/ relation in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exception and do not represent” significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 1-20 recite and are directed to abstract ideas and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea(s). Claims 1-20 are therefore not patent eligible.
Response to Applicant Remarks and Arguments
Applicants remarks and arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regard the argument which states; “The Office action rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is allegedly directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant respectfully disagrees as to the claims as amended”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As amended, Examiner states that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, as explained in details, along the above 101 rejection.
Argument is not correct.
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 extension fee 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINE RIAD whose telephone number is (571)272-8185.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bonzo Bryce can be reached 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.R./
/Amine Riad/
Primary Examiner