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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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, 6-17
Claims 1-4, 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. However, the claimed invention is directed to performing a mental process using a computer as a tool without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of the claims regarding subject matter eligibility in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG):
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis
Step 1: Do the Claims Specify a Statutory Category?
Claims 1-4, 6-10 describe a method/process, claims 11-17 describe a system, and therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 1-4, 6-10
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 1 recites receiving a request for information pertaining to a first alert associated with a network device, determining whether the first alert is active or cleared, and if active, retrieve current alert data from an alert live database, and, if cleared, retrieve data from an alert history database containing a snapshot, collecting enrichment data and adding to existing data, and displaying the retrieved data. There is nothing in the claim elements that preclude the steps from being performed in the mind using a generic computer with an UI as a tool. The claims recite mere data collection, analysis, more data collection and the displaying of said collected data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the practical performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites the various types of computers that can be used as a tool by the user.
Claim 3 recites a framework from which data is retrieved.
Claim 4 recites types of data being collected.
Claims 6-7 recite data type being collected.
Claim 8 recites data collection and displaying of said data.
Claim 9 recites types of UI that could be used by the user.
Claim 10 recites the format of the display.
Each of these claims recite a process that, under their broadest interpretation, contain mental processes using generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the practical performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 1 recites a computing system with a UI display. Even if the described methods are implemented on a computer, there is no indication that the combination of elements in the claim solves any particular technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing computer technology in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exceptions. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s). The processor and database cited in the claim is described at a high level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 1 further recites data retrieval, data analysis, and data display. These limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering, data analysis and display of analyzed results without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Claims 2-4, 6-10 describe further details regarding the data and/or displaying the data. These claims contain no additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
In the instant case, as detailed in the analysis for Step 2A-Prong 2, claims 1-4, 6-10 contain additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea. The processors and data storage devices recited in the claim describe a generic computer processor and/or computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
The limitations pertaining to gathering data, analyzing data and the display of analyzed results which describe insignificant extra-solution activity and are written at a high level in a generic manner without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. Therefore, these limitations recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas defined in the claim.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 11-17
Claims 11-17 contain limitations for a system which are similar to the limitations for the methods specified in claims 1-4, 6-10, respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1, Step 2A – Prong 2, and Step 2B for claims 11-17 is similar to that presented above for claims 1-4, 6-10.
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 11-17 recite and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract ideas(s). Claims 11-17 are therefore not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1-4, 6-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hovieda U.S. Patent Application Publication US2010/0102982A1.
As per claim 1, Hoveida teaches a method, comprising: receiving, using a computing system of a dashboard for alert storage and history ("DASH"), a request for information pertaining to a first alert that is associated with a first device among a plurality of network devices that is each disposed within at least one first network among a plurality of networks (¶ 0049, 0015, 0037, Fig. 6A); determining, using the computing system, whether the first alert is an active alert or an alert that has been cleared (¶ 0049, 0031); based on a determination that the first alert is an active alert, retrieving, using the computing system, current alert data associated with the first device from an alert live database, the alert live database being a mirrored database of a current database instance of a real-time fault management system ("RFM") (¶ 0038, 0056, wherein the alert live database is an aggregation of remote databases); based on a determination that the first alert is an alert that has been cleared, retrieving, using the computing system, alert history data associated with at least one of the first alert or the first device from an alert history database, the alert history database containing a snapshot of an alert history of the at least one of the first alert or the first device (¶ 0049-0050; performing, using the computing system and an enrichment system, enrichment of the first alert, by: retrieving, from one or more databases, first enrichment data associated with at least one of the first alert or the first device; and adding the first enrichment data to one or more entries in the alert history database that are associated with the at least one of the first alert or the first device (¶ 0036, 0021, 0022, 0027); and displaying, using the computing system, one of the current alert data or the alert history data on a user interface ("UI") of the DASH ("DASH UI") (¶ 0037).
As per claim 2, Hoveida teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the computing system comprises at least one of a network management system server, the DASH, a fault management system, the RFM, a plurality of RFMs, a network operations center ("NOC") computing system, a server over a network, a cloud computing system, or a distributed computing system (¶ 0010).
As per claim 3, Hoveida teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of networks comprises two or more disparate networks utilizing different alert management protocols and different fault management protocols (¶ 0018-0020, wherein various cited networks would use different protocols of transmission for alert messages).
As per claim 4, Hoveida teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving or retrieving, using the computing system, alert data associated with at least one 3 of the first alert or the first device from one or more alert data sources, the one or more alert data sources comprising at least one of one or more databases, one or more remote dictionary server ("Redis") queues, the RFM, one or more other RFMs, the first device, one or more network management systems ("NMSs"), or one or more other data sources (¶ 0040); performing, using the computing system, DASH data ingestion functions to generate cleaned alert data, by editing or deleting, from the received or retrieved alert data, at least one of zero data fields, not applicable ("N/A") fields, invalid data, erroneous data, redundant data, blank data, data having non-conforming punctuation, data having non-conforming formatting, or data having non-conforming data structures (¶ 0037, 0056); and performing, using the computing system, at least one of creating or updating one or more entries in the alert history database that are associated with the at least one of the first alert or the first device with the cleaned alert data (¶ 0045-0047, 0037).
As per claim 6, Hoveida teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the first enrichment data comprises at least one of physical address of the first network device, latitude and longitude data for geographical location of the first network device, or historical data regarding the first network device (¶ 0036).
As per claim 7, Hoveida teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the historical data comprises ticketing data for the first network device (¶ 0039).
As per claim 8, Hoveida teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, using the computing system, a request for information pertaining to a transaction history of the first alert; in response to receiving the request for information pertaining to the transaction history of the first alert (¶ 0039), accessing and querying, using the computing system, an alert log database for the requested transaction history information, the alert log database containing a full transaction record of every copy of the first alert either over a first duration or having a total data size that is within a first total data size (¶ 0039); and in response to receiving a response to the query from the alert log database, displaying, using the computing system, the response to the query on the DASH UI (¶ 0041).
As per claim 9, Hoveida teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: providing, using the computing system, the DASH UI to the user via a user device that is used by the user, the DASH UI comprising at least one of: at least one search tool configured to provide the user with one or more of options to search for alerts associated with network devices among the plurality of network devices or options to search for network devices among the plurality of network devices; at least one filter tool configured to provide the user with options to filter search results by one or more of alert profile, time criteria, name of customer, name of network device, name of network in which the network device is located, name of alert, alert ID, alert description, source of alert, or source of alert data; at least one dashboard customization tool configured to provide the user with one or more of options to create multiple dashboards, options to manage one or more dashboards, or options to set or change user preferences for one or more dashboards; or at least one report tool configured to provide the user with one or more of options to generate a report pertaining to at least one of an alert or a network device among the plurality of network devices, options to save a report, options to download a report, options to schedule reports, or options to save data in scheduled reports (¶ 0050).
As per claim 10, Hoveida teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: creating or displaying, using the computing system, a plurality of dashboards each directed to one of an alert among one or more alerts that are associated with one or more network devices among the plurality of network devices or a network device among the one or more network devices, based at least in part on one or more of user input or user preferences (¶ 0050, wherein each view is a dashboard).
As per claim 11, Hoveida teaches a system, comprising: an alert live database, the alert live database being a mirrored database of a current database instance of a real-time fault management system ("RFM") (¶ 0036, 0038); an alert history database, the alert history database containing a snapshot of an alert history of the at least one of the first alert or the first device (¶ 0049); and a computing system, comprising: at least one first processor; and a first non-transitory computer readable medium communicatively coupled to the at least one first processor, the first non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon computer software comprising a first set of instructions that, when executed by the at least one first processor, causes the computing system to: receive a request for information pertaining to a first alert that is associated with a first device among a plurality of network devices that is each disposed within at least one first network among a plurality of networks (¶ 0049. 0015, 0037); determine whether the first alert is an active alert or an alert that has been cleared (¶ 0049, 0031); based on a determination that the first alert is an active alert, retrieve current alert data associated with the first device from the alert live database (¶ 0031); based on a determination that the first alert is an alert that has been cleared, retrieve alert history data associated with at least one of the first alert or the first device from the alert history database (¶ 0049-0050); perform, using an enrichment system, enrichment of the first alert, by: retrieving, from one or more databases, first enrichment data associated with at least one of the first alert or the first device (¶ 0036); and adding the first enrichment data to one or more entries in the alert history database that are associated with the at least one of the first alert or the first device (¶ 0036, 0021, 0022, 0027); and display one of the current alert data or the alert history data on a user interface ("UI") of a dashboard for alert storage and history ("DASH") ("DASH UI") (¶ 0037).
As per claim 12, Hoveida teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the computing system comprises at least one of a network management system server, the DASH, a fault management system, the RFM, a plurality of RFMs, a network operations center ("NOC") computing system, a server over a network, a cloud computing system, or a distributed computing system (¶ 0017).
As per claim 13, Hoveida teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the first set of instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, further causes the computing system to: receive or retrieve alert data associated with at least one of the first alert or the first device from one or more alert data sources, the one or more alert data sources comprising at least one of one or more databases, one or more remote dictionary server ("Redis") queues, the RFM, one or more other RFMs, the first device, one or more network management systems ("NMSs"), or one or more other data sources (¶ 0040); perform DASH data ingestion functions to generate cleaned alert data, by editing or deleting, from the received or retrieved alert data, at least one of zero data fields, not applicable ("N/A") fields, invalid data, erroneous data, redundant data, blank data, data having non-conforming punctuation, data having non-conforming formatting, or 12 data having non-conforming data structures (¶ 0037, 0056); and perform at least one of creating or updating one or more entries in the alert history database that are associated with the at least one of the first alert or the first device with the cleaned alert data (¶ 0045-0047, 0037).
As per claim 14, Hoveida teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the first enrichment data comprises at least one of physical address of the first network device, latitude and longitude data for geographical location of the first network device, or historical data regarding the first network device, wherein the historical data comprises ticketing data for the first network device (¶ 0036).
As per claim 15, Hoveida teaches the system of claim 11, further comprising: an alert log database, the alert log database containing a full transaction record of every copy of the first alert either over a first duration or having a total data size that is within a first total data size (¶ 0039); wherein the first set of instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, further causes the computing system to: receive a request for information pertaining to a transaction history of the first alert (¶ 0039); in response to receiving the request for information pertaining to the transaction history of the first alert, access and query the alert log database for the requested transaction history information (¶ 0039); and in response to receiving a response to the query from the alert log database, display the response to the query on the DASH UI (¶ 0041).
As per claim 16, Hoveida teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the first set of instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, further causes the computing system to: provide the DASH UI to the user via a user device used by the user, the DASH UI comprising at least one of: at least one search tool configured to provide the user with one or more of options to search for alerts associated with network devices among the plurality of network devices or options to search for network devices among the plurality of network devices; at least one filter tool configured to provide the user with options to filter search results by one or more of alert profile, time criteria, name of customer, name of network device, name of network in which the network device is located, name of alert, alert ID, alert description, source of alert, or source of alert data; at least one dashboard customization tool configured to provide the user with one or more of options to create multiple dashboards, options to manage one or more dashboards, or options to set or change user preferences for one or more dashboards; or at least one report tool configured to provide the user with one or more of options to generate a report pertaining to at least one of an alert or a network device among the plurality of network devices, options to save a report, options to download a report, options to schedule reports, or options to save data in scheduled reports (¶ 0050).
As per claim 17, Hoveida teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the first set of instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, further causes the computing system to: create or display a plurality of dashboards each directed to one of an alert among one or more alerts that are associated with one or more network devices among the plurality of network devices or a network device among the one or more network devices, based at least in part on one or more of user input or user preferences (¶ 0050).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/25 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
With respect to the Double Patenting rejection, the applicant has filed a Terminal Disclaimer which has been approved as to overcome the rejection.
With respect to the USC 101 rejection, the applicant has moved matter from claims 5 and 14 into the respective independent claims and has argued that the claims are not directed to a mental process using a computer as a tool without significantly more. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant argues that the amended steps of performing enrichment of the first alert and retrieving and adding the enrichment data to entries in a database goes beyond the interpretation of a mental process using a computer as a tool as the process includes an automatic process and identifies information for enriching that cannot be simply recalled via a mental process and adding to existing entries in the database. The examiner maintains that a human mind can practically look at newly collected data, compare to detect any changes or updates to collected existing data, and then add any changes or updates to the existing data in a database. Using a database is using a basic computing device to store information in similar fashion as a human using paper and pen. There is nothing in the claims that can only be performed by a computer without a human merely using a computer as a tool.
The applicant is urged to use the process language of collecting and analyzing alert data to actually use the data to transform or remediate the system as a means to possibly overcome the rejection.
The applicant has also argued the amended limitations are not taught by the cited art of Hoveida. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner did cite paragraph 0036 as teaching the prior language of claims 5 and 14, as stated by the applicant. The examiner interpreted this citation as implicitly teaching importing data from the live database into the existing historical database, as this is how an existing historical database is created and updated. However, Hoveida does also teach an explicit recitation of the language. In paragraph 0021-0022, Hoveida teaches comparing data in the local copy of an alarm database as a local alarm cache, and then comparing that to the live alarm database to detect any changes. He then teaches (¶ 0022) performing actions on the alarm database as such as updating the entry of the alarm. The examiner interprets this as also teaching a retrieving of new data (enrichment data), comparing it to the prior data to detect any updates, and then updating the prior with the new data.
Conclusion
7. 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 S MCCARTHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571)272-3655. 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 S MCCARTHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113