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 .
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Referring to claims 1, 11, and consequently their dependent claims, it is unclear how topological patterns may be integrated with individual causal scores by weighted sum. Referring to the specification at paragraph 39, the patterns are disclosed as supportive of learning that is used to construct a graph that ultimately results in the production of scores in paragraph 44. It is the scores, not the patterns, that are summed.
Considering factors under In re Wands:
(A) The breadth of the claims suggests that values are summed to determine an action to perform. It is unclear how a pattern can be summed with a score, or further, that how such a sum would suggest a root cause.
(B) The nature of the invention is one of root cause analysis, where a sum is used to identify a root cause.
(C) The state of the prior art does not suggest that such a pattern may be summed with a score or that such a sum would suggest a root cause.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill required would include the understanding of root cause analysis and the role a sum would play in such analysis.
(E) The level of predictability in the art would suggest that a pattern does not integrate with a score.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor suggests that a score may be summed with another score.
(G) Inventor has not provided a working example.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure is indeterminate as no direction has been given on how to sum a pattern with a score or how to use such a sum to determine a root cause.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Referring to claim 7, it is unclear which root cause analysis is being performed. This is understood to refer to “individual” RCA.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, if no statutory category rejection was given above, then the claims have been determined to have a statutory category.
Referring to claims 1 and 11, at step 2a, prong one, as emphasized, there is disclosed a computer-implemented method for root cause analysis comprising combining data, performing individual root cause analysis to determine scores, performing topological root cause analysis to determine “patterns”, summing scores and patterns, and then performing an action as determined by the summing. Claim 1 recited, “A computer-implemented method for root cause analysis, comprising: combining system logs and system metrics into time-series data; performing individual root cause analysis to determine individual causal scores for respective system entities; performing topological root cause analysis to capture topological patterns of system anomalies; integrating the individual causal scores and the topological patterns by a weighted sum; and performing a corrective action on an entity identified based on the weighted sum.” Claim 11 is similar.
The limitations of determining combining, individual root cause analysis, topological root cause analysis, and summing, as crafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. That is, nothing in these claim elements as emphasized precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, possibly with the aid pen and paper. For example, these steps perform steps of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
The step of summing further appears to require mathematical calculation and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts. “Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). These limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis.
At step 2a, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim additionally recites a generic computer and performing an action.
The computer is recited at a high level of generality. The computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The performing an action represents merely adding words equivalent to "apply it" that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception as the performed operation is an insignificant application of the abstract mental process of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. Further, performing is recited at a high level of generality. Performing is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At step 2b, the claim 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, there are the additional elements of a generic computer and performing an action.
The limitations regarding use of a computer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP2106.05(d), for example TLI Communications, Flook, Alice Corp, and Versata.
Performing an action is at best a mere instruction to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). See MPEP 2106.05(g) In re Brown and Ameranth and MPEP 2106.05(d) Flook.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Further referring to claim 2-8, this is further observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that may include mathematical calculation.
Further referring to claim 9, this further describes the data.
Further referring to claim 10, this further describes the action at a high level of generality.
Referring to claims 12-20, see above.
Examiner’s Comment
Given the invention as claimed, no art or double patenting rejection has been applied. However, should the claims be amended to reflect a topological RCA score in place of the claimed ‘pattern’, Applicant may anticipate a rejection based on Meng (see below) and 17/888819, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Localizing Failure Root Causes in a Microservice through Causality Inference” by Meng et al. See section IV.C, particularly at step 2.
US 20210111943 A1, see paragraphs 213-217.
US 20190266253 A1, see paragraph 81.
US 20220358005 A1, see paragraph 45.
US 20240202063 A1, see paragraph 15.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL L CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-3656. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays 8 am to 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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at (571)272-0631. 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.
/GABRIEL CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114