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 1,2,4,5,7-22 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 limitations ‘at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor and having instructions stored thereon, wherein, in response to the at least one processor executing the instructions’, the claims are directed to mental processes.
The limitation ‘comparing first content of the operation log with second content of a signature, wherein the signature has an associated remediation action’ are mental processes – concepts 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; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor and having instructions stored thereon, wherein, in response to the at least one processor executing the instructions; located off-cluster from a node cluster configured to include the node, and wherein the node cluster comprises nodes that are respective devices operating via at least one network’ are 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 elements ‘receiving an operation log, wherein the operation log is received from a node and comprises content detailing a failed operation of the node, wherein the operation log is auto-compiled by the node and comprises an operational status of the node and one or more operational details of the node at least at one of when, or prior to, the operational status of the node was determined, and wherein the system is remotely located from the node; wherein the first content comprises a first set of items each having a respective timestamp, and the second content comprises a second set of items each having a respective timestamp, and wherein the comparing comprises determining that the first set of items matches the second set of items and determining that a first chronological order of the first set of items has a matching chronological order to a second chronological order of the second set of items; generating an instruction to implement the remediation action at the node’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The ‘receiving’ limitation is data gathering.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount
to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘transmitting the instruction to the node, wherein the instruction is configured to be implemented by the node to change a condition of the node with respect to the node cluster’ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high-level of generality to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)). USPN 20190258948A1 – discloses conventional automated help programs provide the same instructions for troubleshooting to every user, making no differentiation based on experience, skill level, and other profile attributes. These conventional programs also do not differentiate based on what has worked or not worked for users with different experience, skill levels, and other profile attributes. A solution path includes one or more potential solutions for a problem. One or more solutions in the solution path are presented to a user as a potential remedy for a technical problem, based on the cognitive capabilities, preferences, and profile of a user., in paragraph 0027. USPN 20070220303A1 –discloses in a conventional network management, a countermeasure method in the case where a failure has occurred in a network has been such that a highly skilled operator directly deals with each failure, or that operating methods for recovering the network from simple failures are prepared as a script on a computer beforehand, whereupon an operator selects the corresponding operating method., in paragraph 0004.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations ‘wherein the operation log indicates the node is in a first condition, wherein the first condition is the node being orphaned from a node cluster configured to include the node’ - are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, ‘wherein the remediation action places the node in a second condition, and wherein the second condition is the node is re-merged with the node cluster’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations ‘wherein the signature is a first signature included in a set of signatures’ - are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, and ‘wherein the operations further comprise, in response to determining the first content of the operation log does not match the second content of the first signature: forwarding the operation log to an external review system; receiving, from the external review system, a second signature generated based on the first content of the operation log; and supplementing the set of signatures with the second signature’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 5, the limitations ‘wherein the operation log indicates the node is orphaned from a node cluster configured to include the node’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, and ‘the associated remediation action comprises one of re-merging the node into the node cluster, replacing the orphaned node in the node cluster with a different node, or reconfiguring operation of computing equipment comprising the node cluster’ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d). The KR 100587531B1 discloses In such a case, the conventional method has been to replace a server with another cluster node in a cluster system to perform a service. The WO2009087293A1 discloses In known manner, the clusters are arranged so that the replacement of a faulty node can be done quickly hot, in particular thanks to the automatic allocation of address by the DHCP protocol. CN107092437A discloses in the prior art, in order to ensure the stability of the cloud storing system, a main method is to increase the number of the management node, and the HA (High Available, high availability cluster) or technical assurance part cluster management node fault by normal management node to continue providing service, or adding the backup management node providing service to replace the fault management node.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations ‘wherein the node is located in a computer system, and the node is one of a container node, a virtual machine, an application server, a data server, or a user device’ log’ are 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)).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations ‘wherein the operations further comprise: transmitting the associated remediation action to the node for implementation of the associated remediation action at the node; transmitting the associated remediation action to a cluster control process located at the node cluster for implementation of the associated remediation action at the node cluster; or transmitting the remediation action to a cloud control process for implementation of the remediation action at a cloud computing system that comprises the node’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations ‘wherein the failed operation of the node causes the node to be orphaned from the node cluster configured to include the node, and the node is unable to communicate with another node in the node cluster’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g))..
Regarding claim 10, the limitation ‘wherein the remediation action comprises rebooting the node’ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d). The 20040034816A1 – paragraph 0049 discloses It is known to configure a computer to reboot to a recovery system from which diagnostics can be performed or to an operational state that the machine had prior to the system failure. The 20050097182A1 discloses Another problem arises if the operating system of the server is inoperable, or about to become inoperable, for some reason. If the server being monitored is showing signs of degradation, it may be desirable to perform a low-level reboot of the server. In this instance, under the conventional approach, someone must be sent to the location of the server to "reboot" the server and perform any required maintenance.
Regarding claim 11, with the exception of the limitations ‘by a device comprising at least one processer; by the device’, the claims are direct to mental processes.
The limitations ‘comparing first content of an operation log with second content of a signature, wherein the operation log is received from a node in a first condition comprising a failed condition, wherein the signature is generated from a previously failed node, wherein the first content of the operational log is in a first chronological sequence, and wherein the second content of the signature is in a second chronological sequence; in response to determining that the first chronological sequence of the first content matches the second chronological sequence of the second content based on determining that the first set of items matches the second set of items and based on determining that a first chronological order of the first set of items matches a second chronological order of the second set of items: indicating the first content and the second content match’ are mental processes – concepts 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 ‘by a device comprising at least one processer; by the device; wherein the system is located remotely from the node and off-cluster from the node cluster configured to include the node, and wherein the node cluster comprises nodes that are respective devices operating via at least one network’ are 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 elements ‘wherein the operation log is received from a node in a first condition comprising a failed condition, wherein the failed condition is auto-detected by the node and the operation log is auto-compiled by the node, wherein the signature is generated from a previously failed node, wherein the first content comprises a first set of items each having a respective timestamp and the second content comprises a second set of items each having a respective timestamp, wherein the first content of the operation log is in a first chronological sequence, wherein the second content of the signature is in a second chronological sequence; generating an instruction to implement a remediation action associated with the signature, wherein the remediation action is to be implemented at the node to change a condition of the node with respect to the node cluster’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount
to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘transmitting the instruction to the node, wherein the instruction is configured to be implemented by the node’ is simply appending well-understood, routine,
conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high-level of
generality to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)). USPN 20190258948A1 – discloses conventional automated help programs provide the same instructions for troubleshooting to every user, making no differentiation based on experience, skill level, and other profile attributes. These conventional programs also do not differentiate based on what has worked or not worked for users with different experience, skill levels, and other profile attributes. A solution path includes one or more potential solutions for a problem. One or more solutions in the solution path are presented to a user as a potential remedy for a technical problem, based on the cognitive capabilities, preferences, and profile of a user., in paragraph 0027. USPN 20070220303A1 –
discloses in a conventional network management, a countermeasure method in the
case where a failure has occurred in a network has been such that a highly skilled
operator directly deals with each failure, or that operating methods for recovering the
network from simple failures are prepared as a script on a computer beforehand,
whereupon an operator selects the corresponding operating method., in paragraph
0004.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations ‘wherein the first condition of the node is the node is orphaned from the node cluster configured to include the node, and a second condition of the node is the node is operational within the node cluster’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations ‘wherein the device is located remote from the node, and the node is unable to communicate with other nodes in the node cluster from which the node is orphaned’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 14, the limitations ‘wherein the node is located in a computer system, and the node is one of a container node, a virtual machine, an application server, a data server, or cloud computing equipment’ are 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)).
Regarding claim 15, the limitations ‘wherein the first condition of the node causes at least one of the node cluster configured to include the node to operate in a degraded state, a file system configured to include the node operates in a degraded state, or a cloud computing system configured to include the node operates in a degraded state’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations ‘wherein the remediation action comprises at least one of re-merging the node into the node cluster, replacing the orphaned node in the node cluster with a different node, or reconfiguring operation of at least one of the node cluster, the file system, or the cloud computing system’ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d). The KR 100587531B1 discloses In such a case, the conventional method has been to replace a server with another cluster node in a cluster system to perform a service. The WO2009087293A1 discloses In known manner, the clusters are arranged so that the replacement of a faulty node can be done quickly hot, in particular thanks to the automatic allocation of address by the DHCP protocol. CN107092437A discloses in the prior art, in order to ensure the stability of the cloud storing system, a main method is to increase the number of the management node, and the HA (High Available, high availability cluster) or technical assurance part cluster management node fault by normal management node to continue providing service, or adding the backup management node providing service to replace the fault management node.
Regarding claim 17, with the exception of the limitations ‘A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing machine-executable instructions, wherein, in response to being executed by a processor’, the claims are directed to mental processes.
The limitations ‘determining that first content of an operation log matches second content of a signature; in response to determining that the first content of the operation log matches the second content of the signature based on the matching chronological order’ are mental processes – concepts 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 ‘A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing machine-executable instructions, wherein, in response to being executed by at least one processor; wherein the system is located remotely from the node and off-cluster from the node cluster configured to include the node, and wherein the node cluster comprises nodes that are respective devices operating via at least one network’ are 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 elements ‘wherein the operation log is received from a node currently orphaned from a node cluster configured to operate with the node and the signature represents an action generated during prior remediation of a previously orphaned node, wherein the operation log is auto-compiled by the node and comprises an operational status of the node and one or more operational details of the node when the operational status of the node was auto-determined by the node, wherein the first content comprises a first set of items each having a respective timestamp and the second content comprises a second set of items each having a respective timestamp, wherein the first content of the operation log is in a first chronological sequence and the second content of the signature is in a second chronological sequence; generating an instruction to implement the action associated with the signature to change a condition of the node with respect to the node cluster’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount
to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘transmitting the instruction to the node, wherein the instruction is configured to be implemented by the node’ is simply appending well-understood, routine,
conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high-level of
generality to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(d)). USPN 20190258948A1 – discloses conventional automated help programs provide the same instructions for troubleshooting to every user, making no differentiation based on experience, skill level, and other profile attributes. These conventional programs also do not differentiate based on what has worked or not worked for users with different experience, skill levels, and other profile attributes. A solution path includes one or more potential solutions for a problem. One or more solutions in the solution path are presented to a user as a potential remedy for a technical problem, based on the cognitive capabilities, preferences, and profile of a user., in paragraph 0027. USPN 20070220303A1 –
discloses in a conventional network management, a countermeasure method in the
case where a failure has occurred in a network has been such that a highly skilled
operator directly deals with each failure, or that operating methods for recovering the
network from simple failures are prepared as a script on a computer beforehand,
whereupon an operator selects the corresponding operating method., in paragraph
0004.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations ‘wherein the system is located off-cluster from the node, and the node is unable to communicate with other nodes in the node cluster from which the node is orphaned’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 19, the limitations ‘wherein the action comprises at least one of re-merging the node into the node cluster, replacing the orphaned node in the node cluster with a different node, or reconfiguring operation of at least one of the node cluster or computing equipment comprising the node cluster’ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d). The KR 100587531B1 discloses In such a case, the conventional method has been to replace a server with another cluster node in a cluster system to perform a service. The WO2009087293A1 discloses In known manner, the clusters are arranged so that the replacement of a faulty node can be done quickly hot, in particular thanks to the automatic allocation of address by the DHCP protocol. CN107092437A discloses in the prior art, in order to ensure the stability of the cloud storing system, a main method is to increase the number of the management node, and the HA (High Available, high availability cluster) or technical assurance part cluster management node fault by normal management node to continue providing service, or adding the backup management node providing service to replace the fault management node.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations ‘wherein the node is located in a computer system, and the node is one of a container node, a virtual machine, an application server, data server, or a user device’ are 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)).
Regarding claim 21, the limitations ‘wherein the operations further comprise: determining a first vector for the first content of the operation log received from the node; determining a second vector for the second content of the signature; determining a vector difference between the first vector and the second vector; comparing the vector difference with a threshold value; and in response to a determination that the comparing of the vector difference with the threshold value satisfies a first criterion, indicating the first content of the operation log and the second content of the signature match, and in response to a determination that the comparing of the vector difference with the threshold value satisfies a second criterion, indicating that the first content of the operation log and the second content of the signature do not match’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 22, the limitations ‘determining a first vector for the first content of the operation log received from the node; determining a second vector for the second content of the signature; determining a vector difference between the first vector and the second vector; comparing the vector difference with a threshold value; and in response to a determination that the comparing of the vector difference is-with the threshold value meets a first criterion, indicating that the first content of the operation log and the second content of the signature match, and in response to a determination that the comparing of the vector difference with the threshold value meets a second criterion, indicating that the first content of the operation log and the second content of the signature do not match’ - are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.; ‘by the device’ - are 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 1-2,4-5,7-22 because either no prior art could be found or no reason to combine with other prior art found based on the new limitations in the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 05/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The 101 – abstract idea still stands. Concerning Applicant’s arguments of the 101 – abstract idea rejection, the claimed limitations as a whole do not integrate the claim into a practical application. The technical problem and technical solution disclosed by Applicant’s Representative are not persuasive by the Examiner. The newly added limitations pertaining to the system being off-cluster from a node cluster and the arrangement of the cluster is merely adding the environment of generic computer components. The newly added limitations pertaining to the actual content used in the comparison, a comparison is still being performed on said content. The claimed limitations are clearly aimed at automating a mental process with generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution active of data gathering, and well-understood, routine, conventional actions of executing instructions to remediate the error in the node cluster.
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