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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 1-20 have submitted for examination
Claims 1-20 have been rejected.
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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis
Step 1: Do the Claims Specify a Statutory Category?
Claims 1-10,11-15,16-20 describe a system, computer implemented method, and computer implemented method, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 1-10
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Independent claims 1,11,16
The limitations describe processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., use of a processor or a generic computer). That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The limitation generates data collection of data in a context with traces, weights and classifies the collected data with different patterns, and then injects to an LLM for analysis and finally, it outputs a summary of causes, and take action and resolution steps to fix the errors.
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.
Dependent claims further process the collected data by detailing each step of the independent claims from pulling of specific data, to weighting the pulled data and further details the LLM analysis, and also details the resolution by secondary prompting to automate the resolution process.
Each of the limitations in these dependent claims describes processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, contain concepts directed to performing the abstract idea processed in the human mind identified in the independent claims.
As explained in the October 2019 Update to the 2019 PEG, when determining whether a claim recites a mental process, consideration must be given as to whether a claim recites a mental process or merely includes limitations that are based on or involve a mental process. In all the dependent claims the limitations describe performing various types of collecting, analyzing, and reporting with taking action to implement the identified mental process in independent claims.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes collecting, analyzing, and reporting with action taking or suggesting, then it falls within the “Mental process Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, dependent claims each recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Independent Claims Indicate computer storage medium comprising instruction which are processor executable instructions, and a system comprising a memory and a processor, the memory storing a computer program executes steps of the method according to independent claims being implemented when the computer program is executed by the processor.
Even if the independent claims collect anomaly data and potential root causes tied to a specific incident time. It generates a context with traces, weights and classifies with different patterns that it injects to an LLM for analysis and finally, it outputs a summary of causes, and take action and resolution steps. It implements this step primarily by using a prompt and sending the prompt to the LLM, 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 for instance in this case the usage of the prompt in communicating the data collected to the LLM. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a computer system or other generic computer component to communicate via a prompt collected data for analysis by the LLM is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s). The system 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)).
The independent claims as mentioned above obtain data, classify the data, analyze the data through the LLM to come up with.
These limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering, classifying the data, and reporting by taking an action without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
The claims recite different steps that can be performed by a human and are therefore directed to the identified judicial exception.
There is no indication that the combination of elements solves a technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using a mental process in its ordinary capacity to apply the identified judicial exception. 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 dependent claims further detail classifying the data, and reporting by taking an action. 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.
as detailed in the analysis for Step 2A-Prong 2, independent claims contain additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea. Elements like different kind of systems and a prompt for sending data to an LLM and the LLM itself describe a generic computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
The limitations pertaining to collecting data, classifying the data, and reporting by taking an action, generically applying an evaluation to an identified problem 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.
The dependent claims have no indication that the combination of elements solves a technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing off-the-shelf component with capacity to apply the identified judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a generic computer component or system, or utilizing mental process to apply the identified judicial exception, does not describe an inventive concept.
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 1-20 recite and are directed to abstract ideas and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea(s). Claims 1-20 are therefore not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure See PTO 892.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINE RIAD whose telephone number is (571)272-8185.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bonzo Bryce can be reached 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Amine Riad/
Primary Examiner