DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are pending for examination. Claims 2-9 and 11-18 were cancelled in claim amendments filed 12/23/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the weight" in page 3. It is unclear as to which weight is being referred to:
Claim 1: “…correct a weight associated with the identified measurement value for the anomaly detection model;…”
Claim 1: “…when a determination is made that there are no overlapping time periods in which the failure has occurred in the external system, update the anomaly detection model to correct a weight of anomaly determination to increase for the measurement value; and…”
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, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
determine, by using an anomaly detection model, whether an anomaly has occurred in a first system;
when a determination is made that the anomaly has occurred in the first system, presume whether the anomaly is influenced by a failure in an external system connected to the first system,
wherein the external system is a system that is not managed by an administrator of the information processing device;
when a presumption is made that the determined anomaly is influenced by the failure in the external system, update the anomaly detection model to reduce influence of the failure in the external system; and
acquire failure information indicating a notification about a failure in a communication network or a server device included in the external system,
wherein the anomaly detection model is a machine learning model configured to receive, as input, a plurality of types of measurement values measured by one or more devices included in the first system and
output an anomaly score of the first system, and
wherein the processor is further configured to: when the anomaly score exceeds a predetermined threshold, determine that the anomaly has occurred in the first system;
determine, based on the failure information, a time period in which the failure has occurred in the external system;
analyze input and output of the anomaly detection model in the time period such that a measurement value of the plurality of types of measurement values with a degree of contribution equal to or higher than a predetermined value to a change in the anomaly score is identified, the change in the anomaly score being due to the failure in the external system;
correct a weight associated with the identified measurement value for the anomaly detection model;
when a determination is made that there are no overlapping time periods in which the failure has occurred in the external system, update the anomaly detection model to correct a weight of anomaly determination to increase for the measurement value; and
perform a correction to reduce the weight for the measurement value with the degree of contribution exceeding the predetermined value.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘determine’ limitations in # 1, 8, and 9 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), are mental processes that cover performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person making an observation and/or an evaluation associated with data.
The ‘presume’ limitation in # 2 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “presuming” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making a judgment associated with data.
The ‘update’ limitations in # 4 and 12 above, as claimed and under BRI, are mental processes that cover performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “updating” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making a simple adjustment associated with data. See, e.g., ¶ 0074 of the instant specification: “…when the failure has occurred in the unmanaged system, the model update unit 314 identifies the measurement value (X5) that is the cause of the anomaly determination, and corrects the weight for the measurement value to a smaller value,…”
The ‘analyze’ limitation in # 10 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “analyzing” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an evaluation associated with data.
The ‘correct / performing a correction’ limitations in # 11 and 13 above, as claimed and under BRI, are mental processes that cover performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “correcting” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making a change / judgement associated with data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
In # 3 above, the claimed external system is merely further described in the context of a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The ‘acquire’ limitation in # 5 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “acquiring” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘receive’ limitation in # 6 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘output’ limitation in # 7 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “outputting” in the context of this claim encompasses a mere insignificant output of data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim recites the following additional elements:
an information processing device, and
a processor.
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply an exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply an exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally, with regards to # 5-7 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claims 10 and 19 recite:
determining, by using an anomaly detection model, whether an anomaly has occurred in a first system;
presuming, when a determination is made that the anomaly has occurred in the first system, whether the anomaly is influenced by a failure in an external system connected to the first system,
wherein the external system is a system that is not managed by an administrator of the information processing device;
updating, when a presumption is made that the determined anomaly is influenced by the failure in the external system, the anomaly detection model to reduce influence of the failure in the external system; and
acquiring failure information indicating a notification about a failure in a communication network or a server device included in the external system,
wherein the anomaly detection model is a machine learning model configured to receive, as input, a plurality of types of measurement values measured by one or more devices included in the first system and
output an anomaly score of the first system, and
when the anomaly score exceeds a predetermined threshold, determining that the anomaly has occurred in the first system;
determining, based on the failure information, a time period in which the failure has occurred in the external system;
analyzing input and output of the anomaly detection model in the time period such that a measurement value of the plurality of types of measurement values with a degree of contribution equal to or higher than a predetermined value to a change in the anomaly score is identified, the change in the anomaly score being due to the failure in the external system;
correcting a weight associated with the identified measurement value for the anomaly detection model; and
performing a correction to reduce the weight for the measurement value with the degree of contribution exceeding the predetermined value.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 10 is a process.
Claim 19 is an article of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘determining’ limitations in # 14, 21, and 22 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), are mental processes that cover performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person making an observation and/or an evaluation associated with data.
The ‘presuming’ limitation in # 15 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “presuming” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making a judgment associated with data.
The ‘updating’ limitation in # 17 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “updating” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making a simple adjustment associated with data. See, e.g., ¶ 0074 of the instant specification: “…when the failure has occurred in the unmanaged system, the model update unit 314 identifies the measurement value (X5) that is the cause of the anomaly determination, and corrects the weight for the measurement value to a smaller value,…”
The ‘analyzing’ limitation in # 23 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “analyzing” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an evaluation associated with data.
The ‘correcting / performing a correction’ limitations in # 24 and 25 above, as claimed and under BRI, are mental processes that cover performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “correcting” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making a change / judgement associated with data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
In # 16 above, the claimed external system is merely further described in the context of a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The ‘acquiring’ limitation in # 18 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “acquiring” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘receive’ limitation in # 19 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘output’ limitation in # 20 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “outputting” in the context of this claim encompasses a mere insignificant output of data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claims recite the following additional elements:
an information processing device (Claim 10),
a non-transitory storage medium (Claim 19), and
one or more processors (Claim 19).
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply an exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply an exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally, with regards to # 18-20 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
For at least the reasoning provided above, Claims 1, 10, and 19 are patent ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 10, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Additionally, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of Claim 1 will need to be overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The elements of independent Claims 1, 10, and 19 were neither found through a search of the prior art nor considered obvious by the Examiner. In particular, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations and in the context of their claims as a whole:
Claim 1: “…when a determination is made that the anomaly has occurred in the first system, presume whether the anomaly is influenced by a failure in an external system connected to the first system,…; when a presumption is made that the determined anomaly is influenced by the failure in the external system, update the anomaly detection model to reduce influence of the failure in the external system; and…”
Claims 10 and 19: “…presuming, when a determination is made that the anomaly has occurred in the first system, whether the anomaly is influenced by a failure in an external system connected to the first system,…; updating, when a presumption is made that the determined anomaly is influenced by the failure in the external system, the anomaly detection model to reduce influence of the failure in the external system; and…”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Remarks argue that:
As described with regard to exemplary embodiments of the present application, for example, in ¶ 0092-0099, and in particular, in ¶ 0099: "when anomaly determination is made due to a failure in [an] unmanaged system, [an] anomaly detection model can be updated so that the anomaly is less detectable. Therefore, [a] data collection system including a plurality of coexisting systems can attain an effect that an anomaly that has occurred in a system other than the system operated by itself is less detectable and an anomaly that has occurred in the system operated by itself is more detectable." Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed features in amended independent Claims 1, 10, and 19 provide an improvement to the technological field of failure detection in a data collection system including a plurality of coexisting systems. For at least the above reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims are patent-eligible under §101 because they integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims do no more than use one or more computer components or tools to perform the mental steps that a human can already do, along with additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Determining and presuming are merely forms of observation, evaluation, and/or judgements. Updating is also merely evaluating for a correction as mentioned above.
The remainder of the steps are either mere data gathering or outputting data which, per at least MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g), are considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
Consider the following scenario which covers the claims:
A person observes an anomaly.
The person assumes that the failure occurred in an external system.
The person uses a computer as a tool to generically receive data to input into a model, run the model, and output a score.
The person uses the score to confirm the anomaly.
The person determines a time that the external system failure occurred.
The person evaluates whether or not the model properly weighted for the failure during this time.
If not, i.e., the weighting was too much regarding the external system failure during the time, the person can make a correction so that the model is made more accurate.
In the above scenario, there is no technological improvement and, as such, no integration of abstract ideas into a practical application. The computer technology merely runs a generic model to aid with human thinking. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH KUDIRKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5pm ET.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at (571) 272-0631. 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.
/JOSEPH R KUDIRKA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114