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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12169699B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
As per Claims 21-28: Regarding,
Current Application
US 12169699B2 (App. 17/127,216)
21. (New) An apparatus for predictive monitoring of a software application framework, the apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory comprising program code, the at least one non-transitory memory and the program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to at least:
access a software monitoring data object for the software application framework
comprising one or more natural language data fields and one or more structured data fields;
determine, based on one or more of the one or more natural language data fields or the one or more structured data fields, a monitoring data representation for a software incident data object;
determine, based on the monitoring data representation and using one or more clustering machine learning models, one or more predicted monitoring data clusters for the software monitoring data object;
determine, based on the one or more predicted monitoring data clusters, one or more
incident signatures for the software application framework;
cause performance of one or more prediction-based actions based on the one or more
incident signatures.
--------------------------------------------------
22. (New)
The apparatus of claim 21, wherein the one or more natural language data fields
and the one or more structured data fields are associated with a common feature space.
--------------------------------------------------
23. (New)
The apparatus of claim 21, wherein the one or more natural language data fields comprise
an incident message for the software monitoring data object.
--------------------------------------------------
24. (New)
The apparatus of claim 21, wherein the one or more structured data fields comprise a monitoring data object count for the software monitoring data object, an acknowledgement status for the software monitoring data object, a generation timestamp for the software monitoring data object, a monitoring data priority score for the software monitoring data object, and a view status for the software monitoring data object.
--------------------------------------------------
25. (New)
The apparatus of claim 21, wherein:
the one or more structured data fields a window-adjusted timestamp for the software
monitoring data object,
the window-adjusted timestamp is determined based on a sliding window for the software
monitoring data object, and
the sliding window comprises a predefined number of temporally adjacent software
monitoring data objects for the software monitoring data object.
--------------------------------------------------
26. (New)
The apparatus of claim 21, wherein:
performing the one or more prediction-based actions comprises enabling display of a
prediction output user interface,
the prediction output user interface is configured to receive one or more user feedback data objects for the one or more predicted monitoring data clusters, and
at least one of a natural language processing machine learning framework, a structured
data processing machine learning model, and a feature combination machine learning model is retrained using the one or more user feedback data objects.
--------------------------------------------------
27. (New)
The apparatus of claim 21, wherein:
the software monitoring data object is associated with a monitoring data priority score,
the one or more predicted monitoring data clusters are associated with one or more
cluster priority scores, and
the one or more cluster priority scores are determined based on the monitoring data
priority score.
--------------------------------------------------
28. (New)
The apparatus of claim 27, wherein:
performing the one or more prediction-based actions comprises enabling display of a
prediction output user interface, and
the prediction output user interface is configured to display a ranking of the one or more predicted monitoring data clusters in accordance with the one or more cluster priority scores.
1. An apparatus for predictive monitoring of a software application framework, the apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory comprising program code, the at least one non-transitory memory and the program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to at least:
determine, based on one or more natural language data fields of a software monitoring data object for the software application framework and using a natural language processing machine learning framework, a natural language feature data object for the software monitoring data object;
determine, based on the monitoring data representation and using a clustering machine learning model, one or more predicted monitoring data clusters for the software monitoring data object;
determine, based on the one or more predicted monitoring data clusters, one or more incident signatures for the software application framework; and
cause output of a prediction output user interface comprising the one or more incident signatures for the software application framework, wherein the one or more incident signatures are positioned in association with the one or more predicted monitoring data clusters for the software monitoring data object.
--------------------------------------------------
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the natural language feature data object and the structured data feature data object are associated with a common feature space.
--------------------------------------------------
3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more natural language data fields comprise an incident message for the software monitoring data object.
--------------------------------------------------
4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more structured data fields comprise a monitoring data object count for the software monitoring data object, an acknowledgement status for the software monitoring data object, a generation timestamp for the software monitoring data object, a monitoring data priority score for the software monitoring data object, and a view status for the software monitoring data object.
--------------------------------------------------
5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the one or more structured data fields comprise a window-adjusted timestamp for the software monitoring data object,
the window-adjusted timestamp is determined based on a sliding window for the software monitoring data object, and
the sliding window comprises a predefined number of temporally adjacent software monitoring data objects for the software monitoring data object.
--------------------------------------------------
6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
causing output of the prediction output user interface comprises causing rendering, to the prediction output user interface, of a software monitoring linking user interface element, wherein user engagement with the software monitoring linking user interface element is configured to selectively link or unlink the software monitoring data object to or from the one or more predicted monitoring data clusters.
--------------------------------------------------
7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the software monitoring data object is associated with a monitoring data priority score,
the one or more predicted monitoring data clusters are associated with one or more cluster priority scores, and
the one or more cluster priority scores are determined based on the monitoring data priority score.
--------------------------------------------------
8. The apparatus of claim 7, wherein:
the prediction output user interface is configured to display a ranking of the one or more predicted monitoring data clusters in accordance with the one or more cluster priority scores.
Above claims 21-28 of current application are directed to an apparatus. By the compared table above, the features in the current apparatus claims at issue and the apparatus claims in the US patent are not patentably distinct from each other.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify current claims (as seen in the compared table above) from the US patent claims for extending coverage.
As per Claims 29-35 and 36-40: The current claims are directed to a method and a computer program product respectively, and the claims in the method and in the computer program product have the limitations corresponding to the limitations in current method
Claims 29-35 and 36-40 of current Application are also to recite the limitations corresponding to the limitations of the method claims 9-15 and the computer program product 16-20 in the US patent.
By the table above, the features in the current claims 29-35 and 36-40 at issue and the claims in the US patent are not patentably distinct from each other.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 21: It recites “An apparatus for predictive monitoring of a software application framework, the apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory comprising program code, the at least one non-transitory memory and the program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to at least”: it falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
and regarding,
access a software monitoring data object for the software application framework
comprising one or more natural language data fields and one or more structured data fields;
(This recitation reads on a data structure of fields that could be implemented on paper )
determine, based on one or more of the one or more natural language data fields or the
one or more structured data fields, a monitoring data representation for a software incident data object;
determine, based on the monitoring data representation and [using one or more clustering machine learning models], one or more predicted monitoring data clusters for the software monitoring data object;
determine, based on the one or more predicted monitoring data clusters, one or more incident signatures for the software application framework;
(These recitations encompass the performance in human mind since performed with the determines, as a whole in these recitations, it is merely performed as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or carried with pen and paper)
cause performance of one or more prediction-based actions based on the one or more
incident signatures
(These recitations encompass the performance with pen and paper; it is merely performed as opinions with evaluations and judgments)
[Step 2A, prong 1] With broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations of the claim as a whole in bold above, encompass an observation along with judgments, and totally over natural language fields. Within the steps, it covers a mental process that clearly can be performed in human mind and on paper with pen.
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. The limitations of the claim recited in bold above meet all aspects considered by the court.
Thus, the apparatus as a whole shows it covers the performance in the mind and could be added with the pen and paper over a data framework. It has the apparatus directed to a mental process, a judicial exception.
[Step 2A, prong 2]. With the steps in bold above, the claim recites additional elements:
“…the apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory comprising program code, the at least one non-transitory memory and the program code configured to, with the at least one processor”, and “using one or more clustering machine learning models” are merely applying generic computer components and generic of machine learning concepts for performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality. The additional elements are considered not to be integrated into practical application (MPEP 2106.05(d)(f)).
[Step 2B] The additional elements are merely applied using generic computing components to perform generic computing functions; they do not amount to significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, the claim is directed to a judicial exception without providing an inventive concept or significantly more; it is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
As per Claims 22-28: The claims are dependent on claim 21, and the claims recite the limitations as shown in the table in the issue of double patenting above.
The claims show the limitations that correspond to and are performed to cover observations and judgments with the same as the analysis as in claim 21. Thus, the claims fail to cure the deficiencies of the above ineligible under 35 USC 101 of claim 21.
As per Claims 29-35: The claims recite a method. The claims recite the limitations corresponding to the limitations recited in claims 21–28, thus embedding the abstract idea as addressed in claims 21-28. The claims recite additional elements as identified the same in claims 21-28, the Claims are not eligible under 35 USC 101.
As per Claims 36-40: The claims recite a computer program product. The claims recite the limitations corresponding to the limitations recited in claims 21–28, thus embedding the abstract idea as addressed in claims 21-28. The claims recite additional elements as identified the same in claims 21-28, the Claims are not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ted T Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-3706. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm 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, Wei Y Mui can be reached at (571) 272-3708. 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.
TTV
September 19, 2026
/Ted T. Vo/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights