DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Application 18/840941 filed on August 23, 2024 in which Claims 1-8 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 9-17 have been added. Claims 1-17 are pending, of which Claims 1-17 are rejected under Alice 101. The independent claims 1, 7 and 8 do not have a prior art rejection.
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 1-4 and 6-8 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 and 8 recite:
acquire a plurality of metrics including time series data and metadata and a failure query indicating a failure that a user desires to specify from a monitored system
process the plurality of metrics using a first trained encoder model to calculate a first vector representation, the first vector representation being a learned representation of the plurality of metrics
process the failure query using a second trained encoder model to calculate a second vector representation, the second vector representation being a learned representation of the failure query indicating the failure that the user desires to specify from the monitored system
calculate a first similarity between the first vector representation being the learned representation of the plurality of metrics and the second vector representation being the learned representation of the failure query indicating the failure that the user desires to specify from the monitored system
detect a failure in the plurality of metrics based on the first similarity between the first vector representation being the learned representation of the plurality of metrics and the second vector representation being the learned representation of the failure query indicating the failure that the user desires to specify from the monitored system
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘acquire’ limitation in # 1 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “acquire” in the context of this claim encompasses a person receiving data on paper or visually using a generic display.
The ‘process’ limitation in # 2 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “process” in the context of this claim encompasses the person determining a number.
The ‘process’ limitation in # 3 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “process” in the context of this claim encompasses the person determining a number.
The ‘calculate’ limitation in # 4 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “calculate” in the context of this claim encompasses the person mathematically evaluating data.
The ‘detect’ limitation in # 5 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “detect” in the context of this claim encompasses the person evaluating data to determine a pass or fail outcome.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Additionally, the claim recites the following additional element:
a failure information detecting apparatus
first trained encoder model
second trained encoder model
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 into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Claim 2 recites:
calculate an abnormality score based on the plurality of metrics
extract a first metric from the plurality of metrics based on the abnormality score
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process)
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘calculate’ limitation in # 6 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “calculate” in the context of this claim encompasses the person mathematically evaluating data.
The ‘extract’ limitation in # 7 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “extract” in the context of this claim encompasses the person receiving data on paper or visually using a generic display.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
Claim 3 recites:
extract a second metric similar to the failure query indicating the failure that the user desires to specify from the monitored system from the first metric extracted from the plurality of metrics based on the abnormality score based on the failure query indicating the failure that the user desires to specify from the monitored system and the first metric extracted from the plurality of metrics based on the abnormality score
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process)
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘extract’ limitation in # 8 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “extract” in the context of this claim encompasses the person receiving data on paper or visually using a generic display.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
Claim 4 recites:
calculate a second similarity between metadata of the first metric extracted from the plurality of metrics based on the abnormality score and a character string of the failure query indicating the failure that the user desires to specify from the monitored system
extract a second metric having the second similarity exceeding a predetermined threshold value from the first metric extracted from the plurality of metrics based on the abnormality score as the second metric
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process)
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘calculate’ limitation in # 9 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “calculate” in the context of this claim encompasses the person mathematically evaluating data.
The ‘extract’ limitation in # 10 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “extract” in the context of this claim encompasses the person receiving data on paper or visually using a generic display.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
Claim 5 recites:
the first vector representation being the learned representation of the plurality of metrics is a vector representation of the second metric
The ‘the first vector representation being the learned representation of the plurality of metrics is a vector representation of the second metric’ limitation in # 11 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “the first vector representation being the learned representation of the plurality of metrics is a vector representation of the second metric” in the context of this claim encompasses the person obtaining a certain type of data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the idea is not necessarily rooted in computer technology. A computer merely collects, analyzes, manipulates and displays data. In other words, it is just generic analysis using a computer. Accordingly, the claimed invention takes a general approach and applies it to an application of choice. This general approach could be applied to any application within or outside of computer technology. For example, the approach could be used for troubleshooting an insurance application for fraud, i.e., business method. ([“Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.”]). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Mental Processes.
Claim 6 recites:
12. detect the failure in the plurality of metrics when the first similarity between the first vector representation being the learned representation of the plurality of metrics and the second vector representation being the learned representation of the failure query indicating the failure that the user desires to specify from the monitored system exceeds a predetermined threshold value
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process)
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘detect’ limitation in # 12 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “detect” in the context of this claim encompasses the person mathematically evaluating data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
Claim 9 recites:
the first encoder model is different from the second encoder model
The ‘the first encoder model is different from the second encoder model’ limitation in # 13 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “the first encoder model is different from the second encoder model” in the context of this claim encompasses the person obtaining a certain type of data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the idea is not necessarily rooted in computer technology. A computer merely collects, analyzes, manipulates and displays data. In other words, it is just generic analysis using a computer. Accordingly, the claimed invention takes a general approach and applies it to an application of choice. This general approach could be applied to any application within or outside of computer technology. For example, the approach could be used for troubleshooting an insurance application for fraud, i.e., business method. ([“Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.”]). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Mental Processes.
Claim 10 recites:
the first encoder model is a trained metric encoder model
The ‘the first encoder model is different from the second encoder model’ limitation in # 14 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “the first encoder model is different from the second encoder model” in the context of this claim encompasses the person obtaining a certain type of data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the idea is not necessarily rooted in computer technology. A computer merely collects, analyzes, manipulates and displays data. In other words, it is just generic analysis using a computer. Accordingly, the claimed invention takes a general approach and applies it to an application of choice. This general approach could be applied to any application within or outside of computer technology. For example, the approach could be used for troubleshooting an insurance application for fraud, i.e., business method. ([“Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.”]). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Mental Processes.
Claim 11 recites:
the second encoder model is a trained text encoder model
The ‘the second encoder model is a trained text encoder model’ limitation in # 15 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “the second encoder model is a trained text encoder model” in the context of this claim encompasses the person obtaining a certain type of data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the idea is not necessarily rooted in computer technology. A computer merely collects, analyzes, manipulates and displays data. In other words, it is just generic analysis using a computer. Accordingly, the claimed invention takes a general approach and applies it to an application of choice. This general approach could be applied to any application within or outside of computer technology. For example, the approach could be used for troubleshooting an insurance application for fraud, i.e., business method. ([“Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.”]). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Mental Processes.
Claim 12 recites:
the second encoder model is a trained text encoder model
The ‘the second encoder model is a trained text encoder model’ limitation in # 16 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “the second encoder model is a trained text encoder model” in the context of this claim encompasses the person obtaining a certain type of data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the idea is not necessarily rooted in computer technology. A computer merely collects, analyzes, manipulates and displays data. In other words, it is just generic analysis using a computer. Accordingly, the claimed invention takes a general approach and applies it to an application of choice. This general approach could be applied to any application within or outside of computer technology. For example, the approach could be used for troubleshooting an insurance application for fraud, i.e., business method. ([“Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.”]). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Mental Processes.
Claim 13 recites:
second vector representation is a learned semantic representation of the failure query
The ‘second vector representation is a learned semantic representation of the failure query’ limitation in # 17 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “second vector representation is a learned semantic representation of the failure query” in the context of this claim encompasses the person obtaining a certain type of data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the idea is not necessarily rooted in computer technology. A computer merely collects, analyzes, manipulates and displays data. In other words, it is just generic analysis using a computer. Accordingly, the claimed invention takes a general approach and applies it to an application of choice. This general approach could be applied to any application within or outside of computer technology. For example, the approach could be used for troubleshooting an insurance application for fraud, i.e., business method. ([“Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.”]). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Mental Processes.
Claim 14 recites:
the circuitry is further configured to simultaneously encode a timestamp and a data value of the time series data using the first trained encoder model
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘encoding’ limitation in # 18 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “encoding” in the context of this claim encompasses a person converting data on paper or visually using a generic display.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Additionally, the claim recites the following additional element:
circuitry
first trained encoder model
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 into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Claim 15 recites:
the circuitry is further configured to convert a timestamp representing an absolute time into a timestamp representing a relative time within a time window
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘converting’ limitation in # 19 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “converting” in the context of this claim encompasses a person transforming data on paper or visually using a generic display.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Additionally, the claim recites the following additional element:
circuitry
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 into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Claim 16 recites:
the circuitry is further configured to calculate the first vector representation from the timestamp representing the relative time
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes (process).
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘calculating’ limitation in # 20 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is a mental process that covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “calculating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person generating data on paper or visually using a generic display.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Additionally, the claim recites the following additional element:
circuitry
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 into a
practical application, the aforementioned additional element amounts to no more than
a component comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using one or more generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Claim 17 recites:
the failure query indicating the failure that the user desires to specify from the monitored system includes text data in a natural sentence
The ‘the failure query indicating the failure that the user desires to specify from the monitored system includes text data in a natural sentence’ limitation in # 21 above, as claimed, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable limitation, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “the failure query indicating the failure that the user desires to specify from the monitored system includes text data in a natural sentence” in the context of this claim encompasses the person obtaining a certain type of data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the idea is not necessarily rooted in computer technology. A computer merely collects, analyzes, manipulates and displays data. In other words, it is just generic analysis using a computer. Accordingly, the claimed invention takes a general approach and applies it to an application of choice. This general approach could be applied to any application within or outside of computer technology. For example, the approach could be used for troubleshooting an insurance application for fraud, i.e., business method. ([“Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.”]). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Mental Processes.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Beauchesne et al. (U.S. Patent 12,182,670); teaches the raw data is converted into feature vectors via feature extraction. As discussed previously, feature extraction may involve augmenting the features of the observation records with additional features, and then re-encoding the features into a feature vector representation. In some embodiments, the anomaly detection pipeline may support multiple feature vector representations, such as a binary representation or a TF-IDF representation. In some embodiments, other types of feature vector encodings may also be used. In some embodiments, the anomaly detection pipeline may provide a configuration interface to allow an administrator to select the representation of the feature vectors.
Wei et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2023/0273682); teaches the first and second autoencoder engines may determine feature vectors based on time series generated based on the first and second signals. The first and second autoencoder engines may each include an encoder to generate the feature vectors. For example, the encoder may be a neural network that was trained as part of an encoder-decoder pair to generate a representation of the signal as a feature vector. Whereas the first and second feature extraction engines may have been designed by a human to select particular aspects of the signals as features, the first and second autoencoder engines may include encoders trained without explicit human design of which aspects to choose as features.
Mahmud al. (U.S. Patent Application 2021/0326719); teaches using an error taxonomy or classifier which may be automatically or manually generated, the training data selection system categorizes or classifies the failed cases from the initial machine learning model into one or more predetermined error type categories (E.sub.m), such as classifier misprediction, negation error, and incorrectly labeled ground truth. In selected embodiments, the classification of failed cases into the predetermined error type categories (E.sub.m) may be performed manually by the subject matter expert, or may be performed using vector processing computations to detect a similarity between vector representations of failed cases and vector representations of the predetermined error type categories (E.sub.m). Using features extracted from the correct cases (C.sub.j), failed cases (F.sub.k), and/or predetermined error type categories (E.sub.m) as training data, the training data selection system builds one or more error type models (EM.sub.n) or error rules which can predict the likelihood of an input (unlabeled) data sample being correctly classified.
Srivastava al. (U.S. Patent Application 2022/0206886); teaches the system may determine a feature vector representation V of the error log and measure a distance between the feature vector representation V and each cluster, for example, a distance between the feature vector V and a feature vector Vc that represents the centroid of each cluster. The system determines the cluster to which the error log belongs as the cluster that is closest to the feature vector V based on the determined distances between the feature vector V and the centroids of the clusters of error logs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed November 20, 2025, with respect to Claims 1-4 and 6-8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections of 1-4 and 6-8 have been withdrawn. However, the Alice 101 rejected is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SARAI E BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3823. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am to 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/SARAI E BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114