DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-14, and 17-18 are pending for examination.
This Office Action is FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 7, 13
collect telemetry data regarding an amount of time that an operation takes under a plurality of operational states of the information handling system, wherein the plurality of operational states differ based on one or more metrics including processor usage, memory usage, and network usage;
cause a machine learning model to be trained based on the telemetry data;
receive a request to execute an operation, wherein the operation has a default timeout value associated therewith;
execute the operation using the default timeout value;
determine, while the operation remains incomplete, that an elapsed execution time of the operation has reached the default timeout value;
in response to the determining, collect the one or more metrics regarding a current operational state of the information handling system and…
…apply the trained machine learning model to the collected one or more metrics;
adjust the default timeout value to a dynamic timeout value different from the default timeout value…
…wherein the trained machine learning model is configured to output a timeout scaling value based on the collected one or more metrics, and…
…wherein adjusting the default timeout value comprises multiplying the default timeout value by the timeout scaling value output by the trained machine learning model; and
in response to execution of the operation not completing prior to an expiration of the dynamic timeout value, failing the operation.
Step 1: is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 1 is a machine
Claim 7 is a process
Claim 13 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 ‘collect’ and ‘in response to the determining, collect’ limitations in #1 and 6 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “collect” in the context of this claim encompasses a person making an observation about data. See Step 2A, Prong II for alternative analysis of #1.
The ‘determine’ limitation in #5 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses a person making a determination about data.
The ‘adjust[ing]’ limitations in #8, 10 above, as claimed and under BRI, is (1) a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind and (2) a mathematical concept that covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. For example, “adjusting” in the context of this claim encompasses (1) a person making a determination (i.e., determining what value to adjust to) and (2) a mathematical formula and a mathematical calculation.
Step 2A, Prong II: does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘collect’ limitations in #1 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “collect” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘train’ limitation in #2 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘receive’ and ‘execute’ limitations in #3-4 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “receive” and “execute” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g):
ii. Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982).
The ‘apply’ and ‘the trained ML model configured to output…’ limitations in #7 and 9 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply the exception via “apply it” (e.g., a person selecting a value; ML model merely used to perform said selecting). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The ‘failing’ limitation in #11 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “failing” in the context of this claim encompasses merely outputting data (Page 15, lines 2-5: failure shown by returning an error message). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, one or more of the claims recite the following elements:
At least one processor (Claims 1 and 13)
Memory (Claim 1)
Information handling system (Claims 1, 7, and 13)
Article of manufacture (Claim 13)
Non-transitory, computer-readable medium (Claim 13)
Instructions (Claim 13)
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 the 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 the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
With regards to #1, 11, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), 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:
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);
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
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;
With regards to #2-4 and per MPEP 2105.05(d)(I)(2) – Berkheimer v. HP, the following prior art(s) recognizes the element(s) of #2 as well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
Kloepper et al. (US 20230019404 A1) – [0022]: conventional training of a ML model is performed. ML model may be configured for event prediction, the training data comprising or based on labels/features in steps S11/S12, where historical data is labeled and extracted for features. [0050]: collects historical data (i.e., historical data is telemetry)
Verma (US 9436654 B1) – Col 8, lines 42-47: In conventional systems, when a cache client adapter 114B receives an I/O request to read and write to a SAN LUN 156A, it forwards the request to cache owner adapter 114A. The cache owner adapter 114A interfaces with storage system 120 to execute the I/O operation (i.e. read or write data).
Claims 2, 8, 14
wherein failing the operation comprises retrying the operation
Step 2A, Prong I: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, (an) abstract idea(s).
Claims 2, 8, and 14 inherit the abstract idea(s) of their respective parent claims.
Step 2A, Prong II: does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘retrying’ limitation in #12 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “retrying” in the context of this claim encompasses a mere re-execution. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to #12, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), 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:
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
Claims 5, 11, 17
Claims 5, 11, and 17 merely further limits the field of use of Claims 1, 7, and 13, respectively (field of use – MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 6, 12, 18
Claims 6, 12, and 18 merely further limits the field of use of Claims 1, 7, and 13, respectively (field of use – MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 7, 13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2, 5-6, 8, 11-12, 14, and 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The elements of Claims 1, 7, and 13 were neither found through a search of prior art nor considered obvious by the Examiner. In particular, the prior art of record does not teach nor suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations and in the context of their claims as a whole:
“determining, while the operation remains incomplete, that an elapsed execution time of the operation has reached the default timeout value; in response to the determining, collecting the one or more metrics regarding a current operational state of the information handling system and applying the trained machine learning model to the collected one or more metrics; adjusting the default timeout value to a dynamic timeout value different from the default timeout value, wherein the trained machine learning model is configured to output a timeout scaling value based on the collected one or more metrics, and wherein adjusting the default timeout value comprises multiplying the default timeout value by the timeout scaling value output by the trained machine learning model”
The following references were found and considered by the Examiner to be the most-related prior art with regards to the claimed invention of the instant application:
Gao et al. (US 20250077325 A1), as previously cited, hereinafter “Gao”
Chang et al. (US 6526433 B1), as previously cited, hereinafter “Chang”
Singh et al. (US 20140195861 A1), as previously cited, hereinafter “Singh”
Gao: Fig. 4; [0051]-[0052]: collects historical data to build regression model. Historical data contains REST API response times under differing values of available memory, disk usage, CPU usage, network throughput, etc. [0036]: embodiments utilize machine learning techniques to perform prediction and/or classification tasks. ML functionality implemented using ANN having capability to be trained to perform a function. [0046], [0051]-[0052]: process predicts response time using regression model built from historical data to update the timeout value. ANN effectively trained on historical data to build regression model and predict response time. [0057]: timeout value of each microservice is updated with a value based on the predicted time, rather than based on an arbitrary setting or a default timeout setting for the proxy server. [0054]-[0055]: system predicts probability of coming REST API calls based on regression model 550 and further predicts response time. [0036], [0052], [0054]: prediction via trained ML/ANN and real-time resources about REST API 420. However, calculates timeout value based on predicted response time, before API call executes. Does not calculate new timeout in response to the previous (default) value fails
Chang: Fig. 5, block 68 and Col 6, lines 22-25: an initial timeout value for the binding handle is set. The timeout value refers to when an RCP (remote call procedure) 108 is made from the client 10A to the application server 10B of the client/server pair. Col 5, lines 25-30: the binding handle is used to allow the client server 10A to talk to the server system 10B through RPCs. Fig. 5, block 72 and Col 6, lines 26-30: making the RCP is interpreted as a request, wherein the RCP is executed (using the initial timeout value in the binding handle) and the actual response time is recorded. Col 6, lines 39-47: an optimal value is generated using response time values gathered and obtained from the tracking step. Col 5, lines 53-59: response times refers to a metric regarding the current operational state of the client/server pair. Col 7, lines 14-20: the optimal timeout value resets the current (initial) timeout value associated with the binding handle. Teaches receiving a request and executing the requested RCP with the initial timeout value to calculate optimal timeout value. Does not teach determining initial timeout fails while operation is incomplete.
Singh: [0029]: the new timeout value may be chosen by increasing the timeout value to 2x (= 2 * initial. Note: ‘x’ used here is different than the ‘X’ defined in the rate control). The scaling factor of 2 was determined to check how many actions would actually fail and how many would succeed. Does not use AI/ML to change timeout value nor based on collected CPU, memory, network usage metrics. Selected by implementing a parallel hypothesis system.
Although conceptually similar to the claimed invention of the instant application, Gao, Chang, and Singh do not teach the limitation(s) listed above. Additional modifications were deemed nonobvious by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/16/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 5, 11, and 17 have been withdrawn.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, on Page 9, Applicant argues:
“To the extent the Office characterizes the recited multiplication as a mathematical concept, Applicant submits that that limitation is integrated into a practical application and does not render the claim ineligible. The claim does not recite the multiplication in the abstract; it uses the model- output scaling value to reset the specific timer governing an executing operation and control whether that live operation continues or is failed, which is a concrete technological use rather than a bare mathematical relationship. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)(2)(IV) and 2106.04(d).”
“Applicant further submits that claim 1 integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. A claim reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to another technology or technical field, integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §§ 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a). Amended claim 1 recites the specific mechanism that achieves these improvements (detecting that an executing operation has reached its own default timeout, applying a trained model to contemporaneously collected system metrics, and extending the specific timer that governs that operation), rather than reciting the improvement in a merely functional or result-oriented manner.”
“The recited steps are also more than mere instructions to apply an exception, and they are more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(g). The collection of metrics is not nominal data gathering appended to a calculation. It is triggered by, and performed in response to, the determination that the operation has reached its default timeout, and it supplies the specific inputs used to control whether the live operation continues or is failed. The claim therefore imposes meaningful limits on any alleged exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(e).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with A-C.
With respect to A-B, the output of the ML model is merely used as a variable in the formula/calculation described in the adjust/adjusting steps. Such integration is an improvement to the abstract idea (how to alter the mathematical formula/calculation, a person selecting what value to change to) instead of to the computer functionality and/or technology. Furthermore, see the last limitation of the independent claims and Page 14, lines 21-31 – Page 15, lines 1-5 of the instant specification, where the operation continues to fail after applying the dynamic timeout value. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
With respect to C, the collection of metrics is interpreted under Step 2A, Prong I as a mental process, where a person makes an observation about data. Please see above for more detail. As such, the limitation is not interpreted under Step 2A, Prong II and Step 2B.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-14, and 17-18 have been withdrawn.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kelly et al. (US 12069084 B1) – Fig. 2; Col 7, lines 13-49: sets initial RTT-timeout parameter; monitors for network latency; determines whether monitored network latency measurements triggers timeout adjustment; if so, change to a different value between [min RTT-timeout, max RTT-timeout]
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 CATHERINE MARIE NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, 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.
/C.M.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2114
/ASHISH THOMAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights