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 .
This office correspondence is in response to the application filed on November 19, 2024. Claims 1-31 are canceled by a preliminary amendment submitted on 11/19/2024. Claims 32-45 are newly added by a preliminary amendment submitted on 11/19/2024.
Claims 32-45 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/09/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 11/19/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 32-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (Statutory Categories)
The four categories of statutory subject matter are: (1) a process, (2) a machine, (3) a manufacture and (4) a composition of matter. MPEP § 2106.03.
These claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Independent claims 32 and 42, recite a series of steps and, therefore, recite a process that is directed to the abstract idea because they cover the concepts of a mental process (process in the human mind) including grouping of certain methods of observing, organizing human activity. Hence, the steps in the independent claims fall within the mental process grouping of abstract idea.
Claims 32-45 are directed to an apparatus or a method, and the underlying invention is merely relating to management of alarms, and is therefore an abstract idea (Analysis: Step 2A-Prong 1). The claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The underlying invention is merely an Internet communication for managing alarms, and is therefore an abstract idea. The claim recites the limitation of making modification to the identifying networked alarms. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. storing, processing, and predicting related data). There is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, transmitting information indicating properties of the computing resources, the claim encompasses simply exchanges of information resources in his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic performance and does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
The claim recites additional elements of second alarm signal to occur during a first time interval, to which modification has been made. The claims do not recite any limitations that improve the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The processing step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of processing computing resources to use in the modification step step), and amounts to mere data processing, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas 2019-01-07 13 The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (2A – Prong 2).
Therefore, claim fails to provide an inventive concept (2B). As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the modification step was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the example does not provide any indication other than a generic, off the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐ understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving and transmitting steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claims 33-41 and 43-45 recitesfurther collection of properties of the computing resources. The information collected do not add any significant more to the Judicial Exception as they do not add any improvement to the computer system or a technology field. Hence, the claims do not add significant more.
In light of the explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is directed in view of those case laws are directed towards the abstract idea. Lacking significantly more for the remainder of the claim, the invention is nothing more than an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 32-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIJUMBI et al. (US Publication 2021/0014107) hereafter MIJUMBI, in view of Cote et al. (US Patent 11,356,320) hereafter Cote.
As per claim 32, MIJUMBI discloses an apparatus comprising at least one processing core, at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the apparatus at least to: store a set of parameters of a machine learning classifier configured to predict networked alarms, the set of parameters comprising at least one maximum time interval (paragraphs 38, 45, 48: optimization techniques with machine learning algorithm to manage attributes and parameter to determine optimal values to predict network alarms); process a first alarm signal sequence originating in a networked environment, alarms comprised in the first alarm signal sequence occurring at most a time interval comprised in the at least one maximum time interval from each other (paragraphs 57-58, 70: identifying the origination for any given alarm occurrence for an optimal value), and predict, using the set of parameters of the machine learning classifier and the machine learning classifier, based on the first alarm signal sequence, at least one second alarm signal to occur during a first time interval (paragraphs 40, 76: each alarm is automatically determined in sequence of the second group of alarms). Although, MIJUMBI discloses managing alarms in a network and Cote fails to expressly disclose to process a first alarm signal sequence originating in a networked environment, consecutive alarms comprised in the first alarm signal sequence occurring at most a time interval comprised in the at least one maximum time interval from each other.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cote discloses the claimed limitation of process a first alarm signal sequence originating in a networked environment, consecutive alarms comprised in the first alarm signal sequence occurring at most a time interval comprised in the at least one maximum time interval from each other (figure 8A, 18:15-66).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Cotes’ teaching of identifying the root cause of issues in the network with MIJUMBI. One would be motivated to identify the pattern and issues in time series based upon metrics and other problematic components to further enhance the levels of availability and reliability in the network.
As per claim 33, MIJUMBI discloses the apparatus wherein the least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the apparatus to predict, based on a subset of the first alarm signal sequence, the at least one second alarm signal to occur during a second time interval, which begins later than the first time interval, the apparatus being configured to perform the predicting based on the subset of the first alarm sequence at a time instant when an overall time duration of the first alarm sequence, starting from a first one of alarms in the first alarm sequence, has not yet elapsed (paragraphs 68, 92).
As per claim 34, MIJUMBI discloses the apparatus wherein a last alarm of each first subsequence has a different distance in time from the at least one second alarm signal to occur during a second time interval to predict, and the apparatus is configured to use each subsequence to train a different predictor, wherein the apparatus is configured to use each predictor is after training to predict the same at least one second alarm signal to occur during a second time interval (paragraphs 43-45, 48).
As per claim 35, MIJUMBI discloses the apparatus wherein the least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the apparatus to trigger an action responsive to predicting the at least one second alarm, wherein the triggered action comprises a modification in the networked environment to prevent the at least one second alarm from occurring, or transmission of a work order to fix a cause of the at least one second alarm signal (paragraphs 47, 76).
As per claim 36, MIJUMBI discloses the apparatus wherein the least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the apparatus to trigger the action automatically without human operator intervention (paragraph 7).
As per claim 37, MIJUMBI discloses the apparatus wherein the machine learning classifier comprise a classifier based on associative rules (paragraphs 37, 64).
As per claim 38, MIJUMBI discloses the apparatus wherein the least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the apparatus to update at least a part of the parameters of a machine learning classifier based on patterns in alarm signals received in the apparatus (paragraphs 64, 67).
As per claim 39, MIJUMBI discloses the apparatus wherein the least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the apparatus to transform the first alarm signal sequence into an invariant part which is not predictive of a time instant when the at least one second alarm signal occurs and a variant part which is predictive of the time instant when the at least one second alarm signal occurs (paragraphs 48, 76, 107).
As per claim 40, MIJUMBI discloses the apparatus wherein the least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the apparatus to perform the prediction of the at least one second alarm signal such that the apparatus generates separate predictions for each of a plurality of future time intervals concerning the occurrence of the at least one second alarm signal (paragraphs 45, 48).
As per claim 41, MIJUMBI discloses the apparatus wherein the least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the apparatus to assign to each one of the separate predictions an individual likelihood of the predicted at least one second alarm signal occurring during the respective future time interval (paragraphs 48, 70).
Claim 42 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 32.
As per claim 43, MIJUMBI discloses method further comprising predicting, based on a subset of the first alarm signal sequence, the at least one second alarm signal to occur during a second time interval, which begins later than the first time interval, the apparatus being configured to perform the predicting based on the subset of the first alarm sequence at a time instant when an overall time duration of the first alarm sequence, starting from a first one of alarms in the first alarm sequence, has not yet elapsed (paragraphs 68, 92).
As per claim 44, MIJUMBI discloses method further comprising triggering an action responsive to predicting the at least one second alarm, wherein the triggered action comprises a modification in the networked environment to prevent the at least one second alarm from occurring, or transmission of a work order to fix a cause of the at least one second alarm signal (paragraphs 47, 76).
As per claim 45, MIJUMBI discloses method wherein an individual likelihood of the predicted at least one second alarm signal occurring during the respective future time interval is assigned to each one of the separate predictions (paragraphs 48, 70).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA B HUQ whose telephone number is (571)270-3223. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30-5:30 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, Emmanuel L Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/FARZANA B HUQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455