Non-Final Office Action
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of the claims.
Claims 1-5
Step 1: Do the claims recite a statutory category?
Claims 1-5 recite a method—a process
Claim 1:
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 1 recites:
deriving at least one parameter associated with the metric data, and at least one parameter associated with the incident data to obtain a first set of analyzed data, and a second set of analyzed data respectively This limitation recites a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation, a judgment, and an evaluation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
consolidating the first set of analyzed data, and the second set of analyzed data to obtain a consolidated single input, wherein the consolidated single input comprises one or more attributes of the one or more resources with a summarized analysis result This limitation recites a mental process and amounts to merely organizing data. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation, a judgment, and an evaluation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
detecting at least one problem associated with the one or more resources by processing the consolidated single input based on a propositional logic, wherein the propositional logic generate one or more rules which are refined with each iteration, and wherein the one or more rules are defined based on at least one parameter associated with the metric data, and the incident data to detect at least one problem associated with the one or more resources This limitation recites a mental process. The propositional logic is defined as Boolean logic—see claim 4 and para. [0052]-[0057]. Boolean logic or Boolean sentences can be performed in the mind and is nothing more than making an observation, e.g. Is the Boolean sentence true or false? The limitation one or more rules merely refers to the Boolean sentences. Further, the limitation rules which are refined each iteration amounts to making an observation and an evaluation. Based on knowledge of the situation a person updates the Boolean sentences (rules). Further, the limitation detect at least one problem associated with the one or more resources amounts to the mental processes of making an observation and performing an evaluation, e.g. Are the Boolean sentences (rules) true or false? Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation, a judgment, and an evaluation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
generating at least one feedback associated with at least one problem of the one or more resources in a subsequent iteration Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation, a judgment, and an evaluation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
A processor implemented method, comprising: receiving, via one or more hardware processors, a plurality of data associated with one or more resources in an enterprise as an input, wherein the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources corresponds to: (i) a metric data, and (ii) an incident data, and wherein the one or more resources corresponds to one or more computing systems This limitation is a step that merely transmits/stores data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal (See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)).
and iteratively performing, via the one or more hardware processors, based on the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
deriving, via the one or more hardware processors The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
consolidating, via the one or more hardware processors The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
detecting, via the one or more hardware processors…by processing the consolidated single input The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
and generating, via the one or more hardware processors The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considering the claim as a whole these additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. The additional limitations do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional limitations do not implement a judicial exception with, or use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim.
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.
A processor implemented method, comprising: receiving, via one or more hardware processors, a plurality of data associated with one or more resources in an enterprise as an input, wherein the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources corresponds to: (i) a metric data, and (ii) an incident data, and wherein the one or more resources corresponds to one or more computing systems This limitation is a step that merely transmits/stores data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal (See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)). The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i). The additional limitation is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
and iteratively performing, via the one or more hardware processors, based on the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0080]-[0081].
deriving, via the one or more hardware processors is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0080]-[0081].
consolidating, via the one or more hardware processors is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0080]-[0081].
detecting, via the one or more hardware processors…by processing the consolidated single input is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0080]-[0081].
and generating, via the one or more hardware processors is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0080]-[0081].
Claim 2:
Claim 2 recites the additional limitations wherein the metric data corresponds to an utilization data of the one or more resources in the enterprise, wherein the utilization data of the one or more resources comprises a central processing unit (CPU), a memory, a filesystem, a storage, and a performance data, wherein the incident data corresponds to an alert data obtained from the one or more resources, and wherein the alert data includes one or more alerts received upon detecting at least one anomaly in one or more characteristics of the one or more resources The claim limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This limitation is a step that merely transmits/stores data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal (See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)). The additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i).
Claim 3:
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 3 recites: wherein at least one parameter associated with the metric data corresponds to at least one of: (i) a trend, (ii) a seasonality, (iii) a changepoint, (iv) a headroom, (v) a saturation, (vi) a forecast, (vii) a health status, (viii) a summary, wherein the summary corresponds to a maximum (MAX), a minimum (MIN), a mean, a median, a standard deviation, a 90th percentile, and wherein at least one parameter associated with the incident data corresponds to at least one of: (i) an occurrence of an incident, (ii) one or more patterns associated with the incident, (iii) a correlation of the incident, and (iv) a co-occurrence of the incident. Claim 3 further limits the limitation of claim 1: deriving at least one parameter associated with the metric data and at least one parameter associated with the incident data. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, these limitations recite mathematical processes: (i) a trend, (ii) a seasonality, (iii) a changepoint, (iv) a headroom, (v) a saturation, (vi) a forecast, (vii) a health status, (viii) a summary, wherein the summary corresponds to a maximum (MAX), a minimum (MIN), a mean, a median, a standard deviation, a 90th percentile, and mental processes: (i) an occurrence of an incident, (ii) one or more patterns associated with the incident, (iii) a correlation of the incident, and (iv) a co-occurrence of the incident (making an observation, an evaluation, a judgment, and forming an opinion).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
The claim limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitations: deriving, via one or more hardware processors amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Do the claims provide an inventive concept?
The additional limitations: deriving, via one or more hardware processors are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0080]-[0081].
Claim 4:
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 4 recites: wherein the propositional logic corresponds to a Boolean logic, wherein the propositional logic comprise at least one of: (i) an object, (ii) relations or function, and (iii) logical connectives, wherein at least one type of the propositional logic corresponds to: (i) an atomic proposition, or (ii) a compound proposition, and wherein at least one type of the logical connectives corresponds to: (i) a negative (ii) a conjunction, and (iii) a disjunction. Claim 4 further limits the limitation of claim 1: detecting at least one problem associated with the one or more resources by processing the consolidated input based on a propositional logic. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, these limitations recite mathematical processes (Boolean algebra) that can be performed in the mind (mental processes of performing an evaluation and a judgment). Boolean algebra can be performed in the mind and is nothing more than making an observation, e.g. Is the Boolean sentence true or false?
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
The claim limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitations: detecting, via one or more hardware processors…by processing the consolidated single input amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Do the claims provide an inventive concept?
The additional limitations: detecting, via one or more hardware processors…by processing the consolidated single input are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0080]-[0081].
Claim 5:
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 5 recites: wherein at least one type of the feedback associated with at least one problem corresponds to: (i) a blacklist, (ii) a partial feedback, and (iii) no feedback, wherein at least one pattern on the feedback provided for each problem associated with the one or more resources is identified, and wherein at least one pattern on the feedback provided corresponds to at least one of: (i) an accepted feedback, or (ii) a rejected feedback. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation, a judgment, and an evaluation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Providing feedback is a mental process.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
The additional limitations: and generating, via the one or more hardware processors, at least one feedback amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Do the claims provide an inventive concept?
The additional limitation: and generating, via the one or more hardware processors is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0080]-[0081].
Claims 6-14
Step 1: Do the claims recite a statutory category?
Claims 6-14 recite a system—a machine and a manufacture
Claim 6:
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 6 recites:
derive at least one parameter associated with the metric data, and at least one parameter associated with the incident data to obtain a first set of analyzed data, and a second set of analyzed data respectively This limitation recites a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation, a judgment, and an evaluation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
consolidate the first set of analyzed data, and the second set of analyzed data to obtain a consolidated single input, wherein the consolidated single input comprises one or more attributes of the one or more resources with a summarized analysis result This limitation recites a mental process and amounts to merely organizing data. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation, a judgment, and an evaluation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
detect at least one problem associated with the one or more resources by processing the consolidated single input based on a propositional logic, wherein the propositional logic generate one or more rules which are refined with each iteration, and wherein the one or more rules are defined based on at least one parameter associated with the metric data, and the incident data to detect at least one problem associated with the one or more resources This limitation recites a mental process. The propositional logic is defined as Boolean logic—see claim 4 and para. [0052]-[0057]. Boolean logic or Boolean sentences can be performed in the mind and is nothing more than making an observation, e.g. Is the Boolean sentence true or false? The limitation one or more rules merely refers to the Boolean sentences. Further, the limitation rules which are refined each iteration amounts to making an observation and an evaluation. Based on knowledge of the situation a person updates the Boolean sentences (rules). Further, the limitation detect at least one problem associated with the one or more resources amounts to the mental processes of making an observation and performing an evaluation, e.g. Are the Boolean sentences (rules) true or false? Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation, a judgment, and an evaluation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
generate at least one feedback associated with at least one problem of the one or more resources in a subsequent iteration Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation, a judgment, and an evaluation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
A system, comprising: a memory storing instructions; one or more communication interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to receive, a plurality of data associated with one or more resources in an enterprise as an input, wherein the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources corresponds to: (i) a metric data, and (ii) an incident data, and wherein the one or more resources corresponds to one or more computing systems This limitation is a step that merely transmits/stores data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal (See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)).
wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to iteratively perform based on the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to iteratively perform based on the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources comprises derive at least one parameter The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to iteratively perform based on the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources comprises consolidate the first set of analyzed data The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to iteratively perform based on the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources comprises detect at least one problem…by processing the consolidated single input The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to iteratively perform based on the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources comprises generate at least one feedback The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considering the claim as a whole these additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. The additional limitations do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional limitations do not implement a judicial exception with, or use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim.
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.
A system, comprising: a memory storing instructions; one or more communication interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0080]-[0081].
wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to receive, a plurality of data associated with one or more resources in an enterprise as an input, wherein the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources corresponds to: (i) a metric data, and (ii) an incident data, and wherein the one or more resources corresponds to one or more computing systems This limitation is a step that merely transmits/stores data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal (See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)). The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i). The additional limitation is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to iteratively perform based on the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0080]-[0081].
wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to iteratively perform based on the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources comprises derive at least one parameter is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0080]-[0081].
wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to iteratively perform based on the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources comprises consolidate the first set of analyzed data is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0080]-[0081].
wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to iteratively perform based on the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources comprises detect at least one problem…by processing the consolidated single input is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0080]-[0081].
wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to iteratively perform based on the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources comprises generate at least one feedback is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0080]-[0081].
Claims 7-10 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 2-4 above.
Claims 11-15
Step 1: Do the claims recite a statutory category?
Claims 11-15 recite a non-transitory machine readable information storage medium—a manufacture
Claim 11:
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 11 recites:
deriving at least one parameter associated with the metric data, and at least one parameter associated with the incident data to obtain a first set of analyzed data, and a second set of analyzed data respectively This limitation recites a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation, a judgment, and an evaluation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
consolidating the first set of analyzed data, and the second set of analyzed data to obtain a consolidated single input, wherein the consolidated single input comprises one or more attributes of the one or more resources with a summarized analysis result This limitation recites a mental process and amounts to merely organizing data. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation, a judgment, and an evaluation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
detecting at least one problem associated with the one or more resources by processing the consolidated single input based on a propositional logic, wherein the propositional logic generate one or more rules which are refined with each iteration, and wherein the one or more rules are defined based on at least one parameter associated with the metric data, and the incident data to detect at least one problem associated with the one or more resources This limitation recites a mental process. The propositional logic is defined as Boolean logic—see claim 4 and para. [0052]-[0057]. Boolean logic or Boolean sentences can be performed in the mind and is nothing more than making an observation, e.g. Is the Boolean sentence true or false? The limitation one or more rules merely refers to the Boolean sentences. Further, the limitation rules which are refined each iteration amounts to making an observation and an evaluation. Based on knowledge of the situation a person updates the Boolean sentences (rules). Further, the limitation detect at least one problem associated with the one or more resources amounts to the mental processes of making an observation and performing an evaluation, e.g. Are the Boolean sentences (rules) true or false? Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation, a judgment, and an evaluation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
generating at least one feedback associated with at least one problem of the one or more resources in a subsequent iteration Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation, a judgment, and an evaluation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
One or more non-transitory machine readable information storage mediums comprising one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause receiving a plurality of data associated with one or more resources in an enterprise as an input, wherein the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources corresponds to: (i) a metric data, and (ii) an incident data, and wherein the one or more resources corresponds to one or more computing systems This limitation is a step that merely transmits/stores data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal (See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)).
one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause iteratively performing, based on the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause iteratively performing, based on the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources comprises deriving at least one parameter The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause iteratively performing, based on the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources comprises consolidating the first set of analyzed data The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause iteratively performing, based on the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources comprises detecting at least one problem…by processing the consolidated single input The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause iteratively performing, based on the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources generating at least one feedback The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considering the claim as a whole these additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. The additional limitations do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional limitations do not implement a judicial exception with, or use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim.
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.
One or more non-transitory machine readable information storage mediums comprising one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0080]-[0081].
one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause receiving a plurality of data associated with one or more resources in an enterprise as an input, wherein the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources corresponds to: (i) a metric data, and (ii) an incident data, and wherein the one or more resources corresponds to one or more computing systems This limitation is a step that merely transmits/stores data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal (See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)). The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i). The additional limitation is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause iteratively performing, based on the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0080]-[0081].
one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause iteratively performing, based on the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources comprises deriving at least one parameter is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0080]-[0081].
one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause iteratively performing, based on the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources comprises consolidating the first set of analyzed data is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0080]-[0081].
one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause iteratively performing, based on the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources comprises detecting at least one problem…by processing the consolidated single input is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0080]-[0081].
one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause iteratively performing, based on the plurality of data associated with the one or more resources comprises generating at least one feedback is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0080]-[0081].
Claims 11-15 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 2-4 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EP 3 128 425 A1 discloses the limitations of claims 1, 6, and 11 except for a first and a second set of analyzed data and processing the consolidated single input based on a propositional logic.
US 2022/0245044 A1 discloses retrieving data associated with a computing process, filtering the retrieved data, applying rules to the filtered data, and generating a notification based on the results of the applied rules.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MASKULINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 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.
/MICHAEL MASKULINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights