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
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is(are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 recite(s) the limitation(s) of “identifying patterns in the first set of datasets with respect to one or more monitored parameters” and “determining whether a discontinuity exists in the second set of datasets with respect to the one or more monitored parameters based on comparing values corresponding to the one or more monitored parameters in the second set of datasets against the patterns”. This/These limitation(s), as drafted, is(are) a process (processes) that, under its (their) broadest reasonable interpretation, cover(s) performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer system” in claim 1, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic processing components does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental processes grouping.
The examiner notes that “identifying patterns in the first set of datasets with respect to one or more monitored parameters” involves subjective identification of patterns, which are subjectively chosen to be identified, with respect to subjectively monitored parameters and includes the concepts of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and
“determining whether a discontinuity exists in the second set of datasets with respect to the one or more monitored parameters based on comparing values corresponding to the one or more monitored parameters in the second set of datasets against the patterns” involves subjective choices as to what comprises a “discontinuity”, the “comparing of values”, and the “monitored parameters” and includes the concepts of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion in claim 1. Thus, the claim(s) recite(s) a mental process, concepts that may be performed in the human mind, in this case being observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. The examiner notes that the mental processes are those subjective choices such as the factors, indicia, weights, and threshold of what constitutes a “discontinuity” and not necessarily making a comparison of two groups of datasets that would require the use of a computer, especially because “a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited including “receiving, via a network, a first set of datasets of relationship instances that are associated with a domain from a plurality of domains and a first time period”,
“receiving, via the network, a second set of datasets of relationship instances that are associated with an entity, the domain, and a second time period that comes after the first time period”, and
“responsive to determining that the discontinuity exists in the second set of datasets with respect to the one or more parameters, performing a reactive action that involves an aspect associated with the entity or the second set of datasets” in claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processor performing a generic computer function. Generic processor limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The examiner notes that while “a reactive action” could potentially improve the functioning of a computer, it is not a particular solution to a specific problem (An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, see MPEP 2106.05(a), The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it", see MPEP 2106.05(f)), but instead a generic solution to any and all possible problems. In this case “a reactive action” could refer to any action (solution) in response to any possible discontinuity (problem), and is therefore equivalent to the words “apply it”. 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 abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements fail to improve the functionality of the computer itself.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology or effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Furthermore, the applicant’s own specification details the generic nature of the computing components, which also precludes them from presenting anything significantly more ([0028], fig. 1).
Claim(s) 2-14 do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 simply include types of patterns and statistics and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 4 simply trains the machine learning model to identify patterns and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 simply list some types of reactive actions, none of which would improve the functioning of the computer, and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 6 and 9-12 simply detail generic computer functionality and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 7 simply determines a resource and transmits a notification and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 13 simply generates and displays a user interface and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 14 simply details receiving a third set of datasets, determining whether a discontinuity exists (which is a mental process), and refrains from performing a reactive action if the discontinuity if “pervasive” and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system itself is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 1-14 is(are) therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naeini (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0038164).
Regarding claim 1, Naeini discloses a method performed by a computer system of an online software platform (OSP), the method comprising:
receiving, via a network, a first set of datasets of relationship instances that are associated with a domain from a plurality of domains and a first time period (monitoring and parsing metrics data indicative of health status of an application, a system, an environment, or a person into a unified shape and format for a fixed size of data and passed through from a metrics server per interval of time, [0008], environmental signals may be monitored with respect to climate, temperature, population changes, and crisis management, providing probabilities in forecasting and reporting or alerting predictive weather changes, thereby enabling better crisis management by having responsive, manageable systems, [0012], [0023], fig. 1-3);
identifying patterns in the first set of datasets with respect to one or more monitored parameters (identifying any deviation in the metrics data from the learned pattern; generating notifications or an alert identifying the deviation, wherein the alert is an alarm if the deviation is deemed to be a large, unexpected deviation or drastic signal shape; the alert is an incident report if the deviation is a single occurrence of change deemed critical; and the alert is a warning if the deviation is a trend showing a continuous increase while the application, system, environment, or person remains stable; identifying planned deviations to prevent a false positive alert; and communicating the alert to a user, a system operator, an internal component, and/or an external component, [0008], [0012, 0021], By identifying any change in pattern, the tool detects when a system is deviating from its normal state, [0022], [0023, 0028, 0035], fig. 1-3);
receiving, via the network, a second set of datasets of relationship instances that are associated with an entity, the domain, and a second time period that comes after the first time period ([0008, 0029]);
determining whether a discontinuity exists in the second set of datasets with respect to the one or more monitored parameters based on comparing values corresponding to the one or more monitored parameters in the second set of datasets against the patterns ([0008, 0028, 0029]); and
responsive to determining that the discontinuity exists in the second set of datasets with respect to the one or more parameters, performing a reactive action that involves an aspect associated with the entity or the second set of datasets (generating notifications or an alert identifying the deviation, wherein the alert is an alarm if the deviation is deemed to be a large, unexpected deviation or drastic signal shape; the alert is an incident report if the deviation is a single occurrence of change deemed critical; and the alert is a warning if the deviation is a trend showing a continuous increase while the application, system, environment, or person remains stable; identifying planned deviations to prevent a false positive alert; and communicating the alert to a user, a system operator, an internal component, and/or an external component , [0008], These anomalies trigger alarms to notify the system operators with suggested actions that may be taken to fix the issue on the fly or to prevent future down times, depending on the levels of severity, while causing minimal discomfort to the staff. The alarms may notify internal and external components if health of a component is at risk. A correlation matrix may be used as an input to relate changes, making them easier for the user to analyze and debug. A user may manually specify a correlation between metrics of interest. The correlation matrix of metrics may be used to make suggestions of metrics an operator may investigate to determine the cause of an anomaly or to take actions to correct the anomaly, [0033], [0037]).
Regarding claim 2, Naeini discloses wherein the patterns include statistics for a monitored parameter from the one or more monitored parameters ([0008, 0039]).
Regarding claim 3, Naeini discloses wherein the statistics for the monitored parameter include one or more of: a mode value for the monitored parameter, an average value for the monitored parameter, a standard deviation for the monitored parameter, a percentage of datasets in which the monitored parameter has a particular value, a percentage of datasets in which the monitored parameter has a particular value when a description parameter has a particular description value, and a trend of values for the monitored parameter ([0008, 0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Naeini discloses wherein the identifying the patterns in the first set of datasets comprises training a discontinuity machine learning model using the first set of datasets to learn the patterns, wherein the determining whether the discontinuity exists in the second set of datasets comprises applying the discontinuity model to the second set of datasets ([0028, 0029]).
Regarding claim 5, Naeini discloses wherein the reactive action includes one or more of: transmitting a notification regarding the discontinuity to an agent of the entity, generating a processing error for a dataset included in the second set of datasets, logging information regarding the discontinuity for viewing by an agent of the entity, and modifying a dataset included in the second set of datasets ([0008, 0033, 0037]).
Regarding claim 6, Naeini discloses wherein the OSP maintains digital rules of the domain that correspond to domain rules of the domain ([0025]).
Regarding claim 11, Naeini discloses wherein the first set of datasets includes datasets of relationship instances associated with the entity ([0033, 0052, 0057]).
Regarding claim 12, Naeini discloses wherein the first set of datasets further includes datasets of relationship instances associated with entities other than the entity ([0033, 0052, 0057]).
Regarding claim 13, Naeini discloses generating a user interface that allows a user of the OSP to request that the OSP detect discontinuities in datasets of relationship instances associated with the entity ([0033, 0038, 0039, 0048], fig. 2); and
causing the user interface to be displayed on a screen of a device operated by the user ([0038, 0048], fig. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 14, Naeini discloses receiving, via the network, a third set of datasets of relationship instances that are associated with the entity, the domain, and a third time period that comes after the first time period ([0008, 0029]);
determining whether a discontinuity exists in the third set of datasets with respect to the one or more monitored parameters based on comparing values corresponding to the one or more monitored parameters in the third set of datasets against the patterns ([0008, 0028, 0029]); and
responsive to determining that the discontinuity exists in the third set of datasets with respect to the one or more parameters but that the discontinuity that exists in the third set of datasets is pervasive, refraining from performing a reactive action (false positives, Abstract, [0008, 0028]).
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 JOSHUA P LOTTICH whose telephone number is (571)270-3738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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 5712723655. 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.
/JOSHUA P LOTTICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113