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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to obviate the rejections under 35 USC 112(b). The rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In light of the above, Applicant’s arguments cannot be held as persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Although each claim nominally falls within at least one of the four eligible categories under step 1 of the 101 analysis, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (which is a judicial exception to the four categories) without significantly more.
First, with respect to prong one of step 2A of the analysis, each of independent claims 1, 7, and 8 is directed to the abstract idea of organizing network alarm information into clusters and converting network event information into new network event information. Claim 1 will be treated as representative. The idea is recited in the following aspects of claim 1 (and in the corresponding aspects of the other independent claims):
“extract alarm data from the received event information”;
“cluster the received target alarm data into a first set of clusters according to a format of the received target alarm data”;
“cluster the extracted alarm data into a second set of clusters according to a format of the extracted alarm data”;
“generate paired semantic clusters using the first set of clusters and the second set of clusters according to a shared similar meaning of the paired semantic clusters, wherein each paired semantic cluster comprises different formatting that expresses the shared similar meaning”;
“rewrite the format of the extracted alarm data in the received event information with the different formatting of the target alarm data from the second network environment mapped within a corresponding paired semantic cluster”
The idea amounts to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind or with a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the generic computer components, the claimed process encompasses a human network administrator reading printed alarm information and sketching clusters in a notebook, using the clusters to think about converting one kind of network event information into another, and writing down data in a chosen format. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, each of the independent claims recites an abstract idea.
Next, with respect to prong two of step 2A, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in each of the independent claims. In particular, besides the abstract idea itself, each claim recites generic computer functionality at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Simply invoking general-purpose computers or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, or claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer, is not enough to transform the claims into a patent-eligible application, and does not provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, to the extent that the claims require such as gathering and transmitting data over a network, or outputting, storing, or displaying data, these features amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Still further, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As specific examples, the claims recite the following elements which are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
a “device” including “processors”, which amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea using a computer;
“a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing software comprising instructions executable by one or more computers,” which amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea using a computer;
“receive event information…”, which amounts to mere data gathering;
“receive target alarm data…”, which amounts to .
In light of the above, the claimed invention clearly does not pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or to any other technology or technical field. Rather than presenting a technological solution to a technological problem, each claim represents merely an abstract idea that is implemented using computers as tools. Therefore, the claims clearly cannot be said to represent a technological improvement. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Because the claims recite an abstract idea but do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, each claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, with respect to step 2B, each of the independent claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the idea, insignificant extra-solution activity, or mere field-of-use limitations. Mere instructions to apply the abstract idea and mere field-of-use limitations cannot provide an inventive concept. Moreover, as discussed above, to the extent that the claims recite or imply features such as gathering and transmitting data over a network, or outputting, storing, or displaying data, these features amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot amount to significantly more to the abstract idea. Finally, upon reevaluating the elements previously determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity, they cannot be considered unconventional. Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, each of the claims as a whole does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons given above, each of the independent claims is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and therefore the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-7 are rejected under the same rationale as given above. Each of these claims include further details of the abstract idea, making it more specific, but no less abstract. Any additionally recited limitations which are not directed to the abstract idea itself do not include limitations which amount to a practical application of, or significantly more than, the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zasadzinski (“Next Stop ‘NoOps’: Enabling Cross-System Diagnostics Through Graph-based Composition of Logs and Metrics”).
Regarding claim 1, Zasadzinski shows an event information generation device comprising one or more processors configured to:
receive event information associated with a plurality of learned failures from a first network environment (logs and metrics and topology for a source system: see discussion in right column of p. 212, section II(B) on p. 213);
extract alarm data from the received event information (including, inter alia, graphs based on logs and metrics and topology for a source system and a target system: see discussion in right column of p. 212, section II(B) on p. 213);
receive target alarm data from a second network environment (logs and metrics and topology for a target system: see discussion in right column of p. 212, section II(B) on p. 213), wherein the first network environment and the second network environment are different (see section C on p. 217, “a source system and a target system can have both different topologies and different nodes”);
cluster the received target alarm data into a first set of clusters according to a format of the received target alarm data (forming edges, nodes, node attributes: see section III(A) on p. 214);
cluster the extracted alarm data into a second set of clusters according to a format of the extracted alarm data (forming edges, nodes, node attributes: see section III(A) on p. 214);
generate paired semantic clusters using the first set of clusters and the second set of clusters according to a shared similar meaning of the paired semantic clusters, wherein each paired semantic cluster comprises different formatting that expresses the shared similar meaning (graph similarity calculation on p. 214, and section IV beginning on p. 215); and
rewrite the format of the extracted alarm data in the received event information with the different formatting of the target alarm data from the second network environment mapped within a corresponding paired semantic cluster (the new event information including, inter alia, knowledge transferred from a source system to a target system, rewritten into a graph format: see section IV(C) on p. 217).
Regarding claim 2, Zasadzinski shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, wherein the clustering of the received target alarm data and the clustering of the extracted alarm data are performed using at least one of a Euclidean distance or a cosine distance (see section III(B) beginning on p. 213).
Regarding claim 3, Zasadzinski shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein the one or more processors are further configured to pre-process the received target alarm data and the extracted alarm data prior to clustering by performing at least one of data ranging, morphological analysis, or vectorization conversion into a standard format (see section III(B) beginning on p. 213 and section IV(A) beginning on p. 216).
Regarding claim 4, Zasadzinski shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein the paired semantic clusters are generated using at least one of a ward method, a group average method, or a shortest distance method, for the shared similar meaning between the first network environment and the second network environment (section II(B) on p. 213).
Regarding claim 5, Zasadzinski shows the limitations of claim 4 as applied above and further shows wherein the rewriting of the format comprises the one or more processors further configured to apply the rewritten information as a rule upon occurrence of a subsequent failure within the second network environment (see section IV(c) on p. 217).
Regarding claim 6, Zasadzinski shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and further shows wherein the one or more processors are further configured to transmit the rewritten information to the second network environment for application to a subsequent failure within the second network environment (see section IV(c) on p. 217).
Claims 7 and 8 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected for the reasons given above, mutatis mutandis.
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 Christopher D. Biagini whose telephone number is (571)272-9743. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 9 AM - 5 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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1684. 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.
Christopher D. Biagini
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Christopher Biagini/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights