DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application filed on August 8, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Internet Communications
Without a written authorization for Internet communications by the Applicant in place, the USPTO cannot communicate with the Applicant via email and will not respond via email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 122, such as claimed subject matter in an interview agenda or proposed claim amendments for an Examiner’s Amendment.
Therefore, in the interest of facilitating compact prosecution, the Examiner kindly asks the Applicant to authorize Internet communications with the USPTO by using Form PTO/SB/439 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms). The form may be submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (Patent Center) using the document description “Internet Communications Authorized” to facilitate processing. The written authorization for Internet communications must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion. The written authorization for Internet communications may not be submitted via an email. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Claim Interpretation
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” See MPEP § 2111. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, the drawings, and the prior art. See MPEP § 2111.01(I).
Applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s) in the specification at the relevant time. Where an explicit definition is provided by the Applicant for a term, that definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. See MPEP § 2111.01(IV)(A). Any such lexicographic definition for a term will be expressly noted by the Examiner in the prior art rejections of the claims.
Claim Mapping
For clarity of the prosecution history record, the Examiner has provided annotations in the prior art rejections of the claims to aid the Applicant in understanding the Examiner’s interpretations of the claimed invention and the prior art, such as emphasizing notable and relevant portions of the prior art citations, using item-to-item matching to the prior art citations, pairing exact claim language to particular language used in the prior art citations, and/or clearly explaining the Examiner’s interpretation as to how a prior art citation maps to the claim language, especially when there is no one-to-one matching of terms. Furthermore, the annotations are provided in the prior art rejections of the claims at the Examiner’s discretion where the Examiner deemed to be appropriate and necessary.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 2, paragraph [0001] of the specification, “U.S. Nonprovisional Patent Application No. 17/163,622, filed on February 1, 2021” should read -- U.S. Non-Provisional Patent Application No. 17/163,622 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,086,044), filed on February 1, 2021 --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “based on the received configuration file.” It should read -- based on one or more sources of data included in the received configuration file --.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “applying the set of rules to the filtered data set.” It should read -- applying the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set --.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite “the set of rules.” It should read -- the set of rules included in the received rules file --.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claims 5, 12, and 19 recite “the value.” It should read -- the value of the data field --.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claims 5, 12, and 19 recite “a predetermined criteria.” It should read -- a predetermined criterion --.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 12 recites “one or more of the plurality of records.” It should read -- the one or more of the plurality of records --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,086,044 (hereinafter “‘044”). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1-20 of the instant application define an obvious variation of the invention claimed in ‘044.
Examiner respectfully submits the relevant portions of MPEP §§ 804(II)(B), 804(II)(B)(3), and 804(II)(B)(4) with emphasis added for purposes of convenience in discussion and illustration:
MPEP § 804(II)(B) Nonstatutory Double Patenting
A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
MPEP § 804(II)(B)(3) Obviousness Analysis
Any nonstatutory double patenting rejection made under the obviousness analysis should make clear:
(A) The differences between the inventions defined by the conflicting claims – a claim in the patent compared to a claim in the application; and
(B) The reasons why a person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the invention defined in the claim at issue would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the patent.
MPEP § 804(II)(B)(4) One-Way Test for Distinctness
If the patent term filing date of an application under examination is the same or later than that of a reference application or patent, only a one-way determination of distinctness is needed in resolving the issue of double patenting, i.e., whether the invention claimed in the application would have been anticipated by, or an obvious variation of, the invention claimed in the reference application or patent. See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 1435, 46 USPQ2d 1226, 1231-32 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The court in Berg applied a one-way test where an applicant filed two separate applications even though all claims could have been filed in a single application, because the applicant’s action could have resulted in an improper timewise extension of rights if one patent expired later than the other. If a claimed invention in the application would have been obvious over a claimed invention in the patent, there would be an unjustified timewise extension of the patent and a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is proper. According to the Berg court, improperly extending the patent term “is precisely the result that the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting was created to prevent.” Id.
Similarly, even if the application under examination has the earlier patent term filing date, only a one-way determination of distinctness is needed to support a double patenting rejection in the absence of a finding: (A) that “the PTO is solely responsible for any delays” in prosecution of that application (In re Hubbell, 709 F.3d 1140, 1150, 106 USPQ2d 1032, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 2013)); and (B) that the applicant could not have filed the conflicting claims in a single (i.e., the earlier-filed) application (In re Kaplan, 789 F.2d 1574, 229 USPQ 678 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
It is noted that the instant application is a later-filed continuation of ‘044. It is also noted that both the instant application and ‘044 were filed by a common assignee/owner. Claims 1-20 of ‘044 recite all the limitations of Claims 1-20 of the instant application, while also recite further limitations, and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patentably distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting. A later claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
Claim 1 of ‘044 as shown in table 1 recites all the limitations of Claim 1 of the instant application, while also recite further limitations, and as such anticipates Claim 1 of the instant application. The further limitations recited in Claim 1 of ‘044 are boldfaced for the Applicant’s convenience. Claims 2-20 of ‘044 are not shown with Claims 2-20 of the instant application for the purpose of brevity.
TABLE 1. Claim 1 of ‘044 v. Claim 1 of the Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,086,044
Instant Application No. 18/798,081
[AltContent: textbox (1.)]A computer-implemented method comprising:
[AltContent: textbox (1.)]A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, a rules file including a set of rules for monitoring a computing process, wherein the set of rules comprises a set of static rules for performing a static check of the computing process or a set of dynamic rules for performing a dynamic check of the computing process;
receiving, by one or more processors, a rules file including a set of rules for monitoring a computing process;
receiving, by the one or more processors, a configuration file for processing the received rules file, wherein the received configuration file includes information indicating one or more sources of data associated with the computing process, one or more filter queries for identifying data associated with the computing process, and a location of the received rules file;
receiving, by the one or more processors, a configuration file for processing the received rules file;
retrieving, by the one or more processors, a data set including a plurality of records associated with the computing process based on the one or more sources of data associated with the computing process included in the received configuration file;
retrieving, by the one or more processors, a data set including a plurality of records associated with the computing process based on the received configuration file;
filtering, by the one or more processors, the retrieved data set by applying the one or more filter queries included in the received configuration file to the retrieved data set;
filtering, by the one or more processors, the retrieved data set by applying one or more filter queries to the retrieved data set;
applying, by the one or more processors, the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set; and
applying, by the one or more processors, the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set; and
generating, by the one or more processors, an output indicating results of applying the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set.
generating, by the one or more processors, an output indicating results of applying the set of rules to the filtered data set.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim Interpretation: It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of a claim as a whole be established prior to examining the claim for eligibility. Under the BRI, the limitations of Claim 1 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
The BRI of Claim 1 is a computer-implemented method for receiving, by one or more processors, a rules file including a set of rules for monitoring a computing process; receiving, by the one or more processors, a configuration file for processing the received rules file; retrieving, by the one or more processors, a data set including a plurality of records associated with the computing process based on the received configuration file; filtering, by the one or more processors, the retrieved data set by applying one or more filter queries to the retrieved data set; applying, by the one or more processors, the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set; and generating, by the one or more processors, an output indicating results of applying the set of rules to the filtered data set.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP § 2106.03. Claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method, which is a process (a series of steps or acts), and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(II), a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation:
(a) filtering […] the retrieved data set […].
These recited steps, under the BRI, cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) [a] computer-implemented method; and
(2) one or more processors.
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating a data set in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to filter the data set. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers a practical performance in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) [a] computer-implemented method; and
(2) one or more processors.
The additional elements (1) and (2) are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The term “computer-implemented” implies that a computer is used as a tool to perform the various steps of the claim. And the processors are also used as a tool to perform the various steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(3) […] applying one or more filter queries to the retrieved data set; and
(4) applying […] the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set.
The additional elements (3) and (4) fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite only the idea of applying filter queries/a set of rules without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how applying the filter queries/the set of rules solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional elements attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem of applying the filter queries/the set of rules with no restriction on how this is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing it, and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(5) receiving […] a rules file including a set of rules for monitoring a computing process;
(6) receiving […] a configuration file for processing the received rules file;
(7) retrieving […] a data set including a plurality of records associated with the computing process based on the received configuration file; and
(8) generating […] an output indicating results of applying the set of rules to the filtered data set.
The additional elements (5) to (8) are mere data gathering/outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the judicial exception require such data gathering/outputting, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/outputting. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the judicial exception. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). The claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited judicial exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) [a] computer-implemented method; and
(2) one or more processors.
The additional elements (1) and (2) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(3) […] applying one or more filter queries to the retrieved data set; and
(4) applying […] the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set.
The additional elements (3) and (4) do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of applying the filter queries/the set of rules with no restriction on how this is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing it, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(5) receiving […] a rules file including a set of rules for monitoring a computing process;
(6) receiving […] a configuration file for processing the received rules file;
(7) retrieving […] a data set including a plurality of records associated with the computing process based on the received configuration file; and
(8) generating […] an output indicating results of applying the set of rules to the filtered data set.
The additional elements (5) to (8) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception and thus, are not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data and presenting offers and gathering statistics as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to receive a rule file/a configuration file/a data set and generate an output. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, only the idea of a solution or outcome, and insignificant extra-solution activities, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7 are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claims 2-7 are as follows:
Claim 2 recites the limitation(s):
(a) retrieving historical data associated with the computing process; and
(b) determining, using a neural network trained on the historical data, a trend associated with the computing process.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 3 recites the limitation(s):
(a) updating, based on the trend, the set of rules for monitoring the computing process.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 4 recites the limitation(s):
(a) wherein applying the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set comprises:
(b) applying one or more static rules to one or more of the plurality of records; and
(c) determining whether the one or more of the plurality of records satisfy the applied one or more static rules.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 5 recites the limitation(s):
(a) wherein applying the one or more static rules to one or more of the plurality of records comprises:
(b) determining a value of a data field; and
(c) determining whether the value satisfies a predetermined criteria.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 6 recites the limitation(s):
(a) wherein applying the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set comprises:
(b) aggregating data included in the retrieved data set associated with a specific data field;
(c) applying one or more dynamic rules to the aggregated data; and
(d) determining whether the aggregated data satisfies the applied one or more dynamic rules.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 7 recites the limitation(s):
(a) wherein the received configuration file defines a schedule for retrieving the data set.
Claims 2-6 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract under Step 2A, Prong One (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 2 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components under Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and thus, are also not significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 4 and 6 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and thus, are also not significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claim 2 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities under Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and thus, are also not significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claim 7 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and thus, fail to add an inventive concept to the claims under Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and thus, are also not significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Thus, Claims 2-7 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 1-7 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
<<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • + • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>>
Claim Interpretation: It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of a claim as a whole be established prior to examining the claim for eligibility. Under the BRI, the limitations of Claim 8 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
The BRI of Claim 8 is a system for receiving a rules file including a set of rules for monitoring a computing process; receiving a configuration file for processing the received rules file; retrieving a data set including a plurality of records associated with the computing process based on the received configuration file; filtering the retrieved data set by applying one or more filter queries to the retrieved data set; applying the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set; and generating an output indicating results of applying the set of rules to the filtered data set.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP § 2106.03. Claim 8 is directed to a system, which is a machine, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(II), a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation:
(a) filtering the retrieved data set […].
These recited steps, under the BRI, cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) a data storage device storing processor-readable instructions; and
(2) a processor configured to execute the processor-readable instructions to perform a method including.
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating a data set in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to filter the data set. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers a practical performance in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) a data storage device storing processor-readable instructions; and
(2) a processor configured to execute the processor-readable instructions to perform a method including.
The additional elements (1) and (2) are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The data storage device and processor are used as a tool to perform the various steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(3) […] applying one or more filter queries to the retrieved data set; and
(4) applying the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set.
The additional elements (3) and (4) fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite only the idea of applying filter queries/a set of rules without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how applying the filter queries/the set of rules solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional elements attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem of applying the filter queries/the set of rules with no restriction on how this is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing it, and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(5) receiving a rules file including a set of rules for monitoring a computing process;
(6) receiving a configuration file for processing the received rules file;
(7) retrieving a data set including a plurality of records associated with the computing process based on the received configuration file; and
(8) generating an output indicating results of applying the set of rules to the filtered data set.
The additional elements (5) to (8) are mere data gathering/outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the judicial exception require such data gathering/outputting, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/outputting. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the judicial exception. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). The claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited judicial exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) a data storage device storing processor-readable instructions; and
(2) a processor configured to execute the processor-readable instructions to perform a method including.
The additional elements (1) and (2) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(3) […] applying one or more filter queries to the retrieved data set; and
(4) applying the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set.
The additional elements (3) and (4) do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of applying the filter queries/the set of rules with no restriction on how this is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing it, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(5) receiving a rules file including a set of rules for monitoring a computing process;
(6) receiving a configuration file for processing the received rules file;
(7) retrieving a data set including a plurality of records associated with the computing process based on the received configuration file; and
(8) generating an output indicating results of applying the set of rules to the filtered data set.
The additional elements (5) to (8) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception and thus, are not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data and presenting offers and gathering statistics as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to receive a rule file/a configuration file/a data set and generate an output. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, only the idea of a solution or outcome, and insignificant extra-solution activities, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 9-14 are dependent on Claim 8, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 8.
Claims 9-14 are as follows:
Claim 9 recites the limitation(s):
(a) retrieving historical data associated with the computing process; and
(b) determining, using a neural network trained on the historical data, a trend associated with the computing process.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 10 recites the limitation(s):
(a) updating, based on the trend, the set of rules for monitoring the computing process.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 11 recites the limitation(s):
(a) wherein applying the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set comprises:
(b) applying one or more static rules to one or more of the plurality of records; and
(c) determining whether the one or more of the plurality of records satisfy the applied one or more static rules.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 12 recites the limitation(s):
(a) wherein applying the one or more static rules to one or more of the plurality of records comprises:
(b) determining a value of a data field; and
(c) determining whether the value satisfies a predetermined criteria.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 13 recites the limitation(s):
(a) wherein applying the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set comprises:
(b) aggregating data included in the retrieved data set associated with a specific data field;
(c) applying one or more dynamic rules to the aggregated data; and
(d) determining whether the aggregated data satisfies the applied one or more dynamic rules.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 14 recites the limitation(s):
(a) wherein the received configuration file defines a schedule for retrieving the data set.
Claims 9-13 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract under Step 2A, Prong One (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 9 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components under Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and thus, are also not significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 11 and 13 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and thus, are also not significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claim 9 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities under Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and thus, are also not significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claim 14 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and thus, fail to add an inventive concept to the claims under Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and thus, are also not significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Thus, Claims 9-14 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 8 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 8-14 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
<<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • + • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>>
Claim Interpretation: It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of a claim as a whole be established prior to examining the claim for eligibility. Under the BRI, the limitations of Claim 15 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
The BRI of Claim 15 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for receiving, by one or more processors, a rules file including a set of rules for monitoring a computing process; receiving, by the one or more processors, a configuration file for processing the received rules file; retrieving, by the one or more processors, a data set including a plurality of records associated with the computing process based on the received configuration file; filtering, by the one or more processors, the retrieved data set by applying one or more filter queries to the retrieved data set; applying, by the one or more processors, the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set; and generating, by the one or more processors, an output indicating results of applying the set of rules to the filtered data set.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP § 2106.03. Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which is an article of manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(II), a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation:
(a) filtering […] the retrieved data set […].
These recited steps, under the BRI, cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) [a] non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions that are computer-executable to implement operations comprising; and
(2) one or more processors.
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating a data set in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to filter the data set. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers a practical performance in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) [a] non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions that are computer-executable to implement operations comprising; and
(2) one or more processors.
The additional elements (1) and (2) are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and processors are also used as a tool to perform the various steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(3) […] applying one or more filter queries to the retrieved data set; and
(4) applying […] the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set.
The additional elements (3) and (4) fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite only the idea of applying filter queries/a set of rules without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how applying the filter queries/the set of rules solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional elements attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem of applying the filter queries/the set of rules with no restriction on how this is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing it, and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(5) receiving […] a rules file including a set of rules for monitoring a computing process;
(6) receiving […] a configuration file for processing the received rules file;
(7) retrieving […] a data set including a plurality of records associated with the computing process based on the received configuration file; and
(8) generating […] an output indicating results of applying the set of rules to the filtered data set.
The additional elements (5) to (8) are mere data gathering/outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the judicial exception require such data gathering/outputting, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/outputting. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the judicial exception. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). The claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited judicial exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) [a] non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions that are computer-executable to implement operations comprising; and
(2) one or more processors.
The additional elements (1) and (2) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(3) […] applying one or more filter queries to the retrieved data set; and
(4) applying […] the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set.
The additional elements (3) and (4) do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of applying the filter queries/the set of rules with no restriction on how this is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing it, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(5) receiving […] a rules file including a set of rules for monitoring a computing process;
(6) receiving […] a configuration file for processing the received rules file;
(7) retrieving […] a data set including a plurality of records associated with the computing process based on the received configuration file; and
(8) generating […] an output indicating results of applying the set of rules to the filtered data set.
The additional elements (5) to (8) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception and thus, are not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data and presenting offers and gathering statistics as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to receive a rule file/a configuration file/a data set and generate an output. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, only the idea of a solution or outcome, and insignificant extra-solution activities, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 16-20 are dependent on Claim 15, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 15.
Claims 16-20 are as follows:
Claim 16 recites the limitation(s):
(a) retrieving historical data associated with the computing process; and
(b) determining, using a neural network trained on the historical data, a trend associated with the computing process.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 17 recites the limitation(s):
(a) updating, based on the trend, the set of rules for monitoring the computing process.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 18 recites the limitation(s):
(a) wherein applying the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set comprises:
(b) applying one or more static rules to one or more of the plurality of records; and
(c) determining whether the one or more of the plurality of records satisfy the applied one or more static rules.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 19 recites the limitation(s):
(a) wherein applying the one or more static rules to one or more of the plurality of records comprises:
(b) determining a value of a data field; and
(c) determining whether the value satisfies a predetermined criteria.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 20 recites the limitation(s):
(a) wherein applying the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set comprises:
(b) aggregating data included in the retrieved data set associated with a specific data field;
(c) applying one or more dynamic rules to the aggregated data; and
(d) determining whether the aggregated data satisfies the applied one or more dynamic rules.
Claims 16-20 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract under Step 2A, Prong One (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 16 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components under Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and thus, are also not significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 18 and 20 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and thus, are also not significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claim 16 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities under Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and thus, are also not significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Thus, Claims 16-20 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 15 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 15-20 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0213875 (hereinafter “Ferris”) in view of US 2003/0028521 (hereinafter “Teloh”) and US 2012/0330900 (hereinafter “Patwardhan”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
The claimed invention is generally directed to monitoring computing processes (specification, paragraph [0005]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Ferris is generally directed to providing customized deployment architectures to users of a cloud computing environment by monitoring the applications and processes executed in the cloud computing environment (Abstract). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Teloh is generally directed to controlling configuration information for components of a storage network (specification, paragraph [0001]). And Patwardhan is generally directed to database sampling (specification, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Ferris, Teloh, and Patwardhan are all analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems or are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 1, Ferris discloses:
A computer-implemented method (paragraph [0014], “Embodiments of the present teachings relate to […] methods for independently monitoring cloud computing environments..”) comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors (Figure 5: 502), a rules file including a set of rules for monitoring a computing process (paragraph [0066], “In 610 [sic], the decision system can monitor the applications and/or computing processes as they run in a current deployment architecture in the cloud computing environment. The decision system can monitor the applications and/or computing processes for a duration of time or indefinitely until the occurrence of an event. In 630, the decision system can record, in real-time or on a periodic basis, resource utilization data and/or other parameter data associated with the applications and/or computing processes in a computer readable storage medium (e.g., utilization data set 336 in repository 330) (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0067], “In 640, the decision system can retrieve rules [receiving {…} a rules file including a set of rules], algorithms, and/or heuristics for generating deployment options based on the parameters.”);
applying, by the one or more processors (Figure 5: 502), the set of rules included in the received rules file to the […] data set (paragraph [0068], “In 650, the decision system can generate one or more customized deployment architectures by using the deployment rules to evaluate the resource utilization data and/or other parameter data associated with the applications and/or computing processes (emphasis added).”); and
generating, by the one or more processors (Figure 5: 502), an output indicating results of applying the set of rules to the […] data set (Figure 4C; paragraph [0059], “[…] the decision system 302 can be configured to provide a report 430 to advise the user of deployment options and parameters, an exemplary instance of which is illustrated in FIG. 4C. Deployment options can include computing resources, such as, for example, one or more physical machines, one or more virtual machines, one or more public clouds, one or more private clouds, or any combination thereof. One skilled in the art will realize that the other deployment options or types of computing resources can be used (emphasis added).”).
Ferris does not explicitly disclose:
receiving, by the one or more processors, a configuration file for processing the received rules file; and
retrieving, by the one or more processors, a data set including a plurality of records associated with the computing process based on the received configuration file.
However, Teloh discloses:
receiving, by the one or more processors, a configuration file for processing the received rules file (paragraph [0016], “With respect to FIG. 1, a parser 18 is connected to the configuration repository and performs parsing operations on the configuration information stored in the configuration repository 15 under the control of an extensible parser configuration file 19. The parsed configuration information is then transmitted to the applications, which utilize the configuration information to perform data processing. According to the illustrative embodiment, the parser 18 is key-driven to facilitate the parsing of configuration information. The parser rule configuration file 19 defines the parser rule architecture for controlling and processing the configuration information [receiving {…} a configuration file for processing the received rules file].”); and
retrieving, by the one or more processors, a data set including a plurality of records associated with the computing process based on the received configuration file (paragraph [0016], “The parser rule configuration file 19 defines the parser rule architecture for controlling and processing the configuration information. The parsing grammar includes an extensible parser configuration and an actual key for entering or retrieving data. The parser configuration exists on disk and in core once the parser configuration file is opened and may be updated to extend the key that is used to retrieve or place data from or into the appropriate configuration section (shared configuration or persistent). One skilled in the art will recognize that the parser configuration is not limited to a file, but can comprise any suitable collection of data for defining the parser rules [retrieving {…} a data set including a plurality of records associated with the computing process based on the received configuration file].”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Ferris and Teloh are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Teloh into the teaching of Ferris to include “receiving, by the one or more processors, a configuration file for processing the received rules file; and retrieving, by the one or more processors, a data set including a plurality of records associated with the computing process based on the received configuration file.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to control and process configuration information for performing data processing (Teloh, paragraph [0016]).
The combination of Ferris and Teloh does not explicitly disclose:
filtering, by the one or more processors, the retrieved data set by applying one or more filter queries to the retrieved data set.
However, Patwardhan discloses:
filtering, by the one or more processors (Figure 2a: 202), the retrieved data set by applying one or more filter queries to the retrieved data set (paragraph [0048], “The sampling module 108 receives filtering criteria from the users in order to select and extract the required portion of data (sample data) from the production database. As indicated previously, the filtering criteria may be in form of one or more filter queries formulated in SQL. Further, a sampling percentage may also form part of the filtering criteria. The sampling module 108 extracts the sample data from the production database based on the filtering criteria. If the filtering criteria include one or more filter queries, the sampling module 108 extracts the sample data, based on the filter queries (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Patwardhan is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Patwardhan into the combined teachings of Ferris and Teloh to include “filtering, by the one or more processors, the retrieved data set by applying one or more filter queries to the retrieved data set.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to extract data based on filter queries (Patwardhan, paragraph [0048]).
Claim 8 is a system claim corresponding to the computer-implemented method claim hereinabove (Claim 1). Therefore, Claim 8 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 15 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to the computer-implemented method claim hereinabove (Claim 1). Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ferris in view of Teloh and Patwardhan as applied to Claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of US 2011/0137821 (hereinafter “Mendelsohn”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
The claimed invention is generally directed to monitoring computing processes (specification, paragraph [0005]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Mendelsohn is generally directed to calculating predictive technical indicators (specification, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Mendelsohn is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Ferris discloses “the computing process,” but the combination of Ferris, Teloh, and Patwardhan does not explicitly disclose:
retrieving historical data associated with the computing process; and
determining, using a neural network trained on the historical data, a trend associated with the computing process.
However, Mendelsohn discloses:
retrieving historical data associated with the [market] process (paragraph [0007], “The method includes the steps of: (a) obtaining historical data relating to the market from a server that includes a database of historical time series data for the market […].”); and
determining, using a neural network trained on the historical data, a trend associated with the [market] process (paragraph [0007], “The method includes the steps of: […] (b) obtaining predicted future data relating to the market, e.g., using a predictive server that uses intermarket analysis data to train a neural network to predict financial time series data for the market, or other suitable methods such as trend-line analysis, fundamental analysis, and other market-forecasting theories […].”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Mendelsohn is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Mendelsohn into the combined teachings of Ferris, Teloh, and Patwardhan to include “retrieving historical data associated with the computing process; and determining, using a neural network trained on the historical data, a trend associated with the computing process.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to predict future data relating to a computing process (Mendelsohn, paragraph [0007]).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated; and Ferris further discloses:
updating […] the set of rules for monitoring the computing process (paragraph [0056], “[…] the customization module 332 can be configured to generate and to maintain a set of deployment rules 334. The set of deployment rules 334 can be configured to store rules or best practices for deploying resources in computing cloud environment such as the clouds 304 and 306. The set of deployment rules 334 can be configured to include requirements for software programs provided by the owners and operators of the clouds 304 and 306. The set of deployment rules 334 can also be configured to include resources available in the clouds 304 and 306. Likewise, the set of deployment rules 334 can be configured to include requirements or preferences for software programs provided by software vendors 346, which can be software vendors independent of the decision system 302 and the clouds 304 and 306, such as independent software vendors (ISVs).”).
The combination of Ferris, Teloh, and Patwardhan does not explicitly disclose:
[…] based on the trend […].
However, Mendelsohn discloses:
[…] based on the trend […] (paragraph [0007], “The method includes the steps of: […] (b) obtaining predicted future data relating to the market, e.g., using a predictive server that uses intermarket analysis data to train a neural network to predict financial time series data for the market, or other suitable methods such as trend-line analysis, fundamental analysis, and other market-forecasting theories […].”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Mendelsohn is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Mendelsohn into the combined teachings of Ferris, Teloh, and Patwardhan to include “[…] based on the trend […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to predict future data relating to a computing process (Mendelsohn, paragraph [0007]).
Claims 9 and 10 are system claims corresponding to the computer-implemented method claims hereinabove (Claims 2 and 3, respectively). Therefore, Claims 9 and 10 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 2 and 3, respectively.
Claims 16 and 17 are non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims corresponding to the computer-implemented method claims hereinabove (Claims 2 and 3, respectively). Therefore, Claims 16 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 2 and 3, respectively.
Claims 4-6, 11-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ferris in view of Teloh and Patwardhan as applied to Claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of US 2014/0122396 (hereinafter “Swaminathan”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
The claimed invention is generally directed to monitoring computing processes (specification, paragraph [0005]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Swaminathan is generally directed to optimizing a rules engine as a platform within a computing system (Abstract). Thus, Swaminathan is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Ferris, Teloh, and Patwardhan discloses “applying the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set,” but the combination of Ferris, Teloh, and Patwardhan does not explicitly disclose:
wherein applying the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set comprises:
applying one or more static rules to one or more of the plurality of records; and
determining whether the one or more of the plurality of records satisfy the applied one or more static rules.
However, Swaminathan discloses:
applying one or more static rules to one or more of the plurality of records (paragraph [0128], “A rule source 410 is the point of origination for an update to the rule base 450. The rule source 410 can provide rules that are static and precompiled. Alternatively, the rule source 410 can provide dynamic rules that are created in response to user input or are automatically created.”); and
determining whether the one or more of the plurality of records satisfy the applied one or more static rules (paragraph [0117], “[…] the rules engine platform performing the method 300 is configured to identify one or more rules (operation 375). As illustrated, the rules engine platform may identify a rule based on the asserted fact (e.g., where the asserted fact is required to satisfy the rule’s condition).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Swaminathan is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Swaminathan into the combined teachings of Ferris, Teloh, and Patwardhan to include “wherein applying the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set comprises: applying one or more static rules to one or more of the plurality of records; and determining whether the one or more of the plurality of records satisfy the applied one or more static rules.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to determine one or more actions using an evaluation of a rule (Swaminathan, paragraph [0106]).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 4 is incorporated; and the combination of Ferris, Teloh, and Patwardhan does not explicitly disclose:
wherein applying the one or more static rules to one or more of the plurality of records comprises:
determining a value of a data field; and
determining whether the value satisfies a predetermined criteria.
However, Swaminathan discloses:
wherein applying the one or more static rules to one or more of the plurality of records (paragraph [0128], “A rule source 410 is the point of origination for an update to the rule base 450. The rule source 410 can provide rules that are static and precompiled. Alternatively, the rule source 410 can provide dynamic rules that are created in response to user input or are automatically created.”) comprises:
determining a value of a data field (paragraph [0057], “[…] facts asserted from outdated samples may be updated with a current sample, updated from a default value or new facts may be asserted from new samples.”; paragraph [0098], “As appropriate, a fact is asserted in a repository (e.g., a repository 133, 134) pursuant to sample reception (operation 325). In one embodiment, the fact is only asserted where a sample or the absence thereof substantively updates the facts (e.g., changes the truth value of a fact).”); and
determining whether the value satisfies a predetermined criteria (paragraph [0103], “Having identified a rule, the rules engine platform may then evaluate the rule (operation 335). Evaluating the identified rule may include examining the asserted fact (e.g., for a sample or logical value) or additional facts.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Swaminathan is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Swaminathan into the combined teachings of Ferris, Teloh, and Patwardhan to include “wherein applying the one or more static rules to one or more of the plurality of records comprises: determining a value of a data field; and determining whether the value satisfies a predetermined criteria.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to determine one or more actions using an evaluation of a rule (Swaminathan, paragraph [0106]).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Ferris, Teloh, and Patwardhan discloses “applying the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set,” but the combination of Ferris, Teloh, and Patwardhan does not explicitly disclose:
wherein applying the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set comprises:
aggregating data included in the retrieved data set associated with a specific data field;
applying one or more dynamic rules to the aggregated data; and
determining whether the aggregated data satisfies the applied one or more dynamic rules.
However, Swaminathan discloses:
aggregating data included in the retrieved data set associated with a specific data field (paragraph [0041], “Data received at the rules engine interface 131 can be a sample, which may be any data associated with the sending module 101-106. Received samples may be stored, used to assert facts and/or derive contexts.”; paragraph [0098], “The fact may be asserted as a combination of samples or facts (e.g., an inference), which may already be stored in the repository.”);
applying one or more dynamic rules to the aggregated data (paragraph [0128], “A rule source 410 is the point of origination for an update to the rule base 450. The rule source 410 can provide rules that are static and precompiled. Alternatively, the rule source 410 can provide dynamic rules that are created in response to user input or are automatically created.”); and
determining whether the aggregated data satisfies the applied one or more dynamic rules (paragraph [0117], “[…] the rules engine platform performing the method 300 is configured to identify one or more rules (operation 375). As illustrated, the rules engine platform may identify a rule based on the asserted fact (e.g., where the asserted fact is required to satisfy the rule’s condition).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Swaminathan is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Swaminathan into the combined teachings of Ferris, Teloh, and Patwardhan to include “wherein applying the set of rules included in the received rules file to the filtered data set comprises: aggregating data included in the retrieved data set associated with a specific data field; applying one or more dynamic rules to the aggregated data; and determining whether the aggregated data satisfies the applied one or more dynamic rules.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to determine one or more actions using an evaluation of a rule (Swaminathan, paragraph [0106]).
Claims 11-13 are system claims corresponding to the computer-implemented method claims hereinabove (Claims 4-6, respectively). Therefore, Claims 11-13 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 4-6, respectively.
Claims 18-20 are non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims corresponding to the computer-implemented method claims hereinabove (Claims 4-6, respectively). Therefore, Claims 18-20 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 4-6, respectively.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ferris in view of Teloh and Patwardhan as applied to Claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of US 11,386,153 (hereinafter “Greene”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
The claimed invention is generally directed to monitoring computing processes (specification, paragraph [0005]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Greene is generally directed to associating tags with input data to enable a search of the input data (Abstract). Thus, Greene is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Ferris, Teloh, and Patwardhan does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the received configuration file defines a schedule for retrieving the data set.
However, Greene discloses:
wherein the received configuration file defines a schedule for retrieving the data set (col. 9 lines 32-39, “The configuration file 112 can indicate a schedule for the data sources 102(1), 102(2)-102(N) and/or the tagging system 108 can be configured to transmit and/or retrieve the encoded data 104. In some instances, a scheduling service can use the configuration file 112 and instruct the data sources 102(1), 102(2)-102(N) and/or the tagging system 108 to transmit and/or retrieve the encoded data 104.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Greene is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Greene into the combined teachings of Ferris, Teloh, and Patwardhan to include “wherein the received configuration file defines a schedule for retrieving the data set.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to transmit and/or retrieve data according to a schedule service (Greene, col. 9 lines 32-39).
Claim 14 is a system claim corresponding to the computer-implemented method claim hereinabove (Claim 7). Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Qing Chen whose telephone number is 571-270-1071. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/ interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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 more 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.
/Qing Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights