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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 9 recite(s) the limitation(s) of “predict an occurrence of a failure or an abnormality of the electronic apparatus based on the data” and “determine a remedial action to be taken to avoid the failure or the abnormality of the electronic apparatus when the circuitry predicts the occurrence of the failure or the abnormality” in claim 1,
“predict an occurrence of a failure or an abnormality of the electronic apparatus based on the data” and “determine a remedial action to be taken avoid the failure or the abnormality of the electronic apparatus when the circuitry predicts the occurrence of the failure or the abnormality of the electronic apparatus” in claim 8, and
“predicting an occurrence of a failure or an abnormality of the electronic apparatus based on the data” and “determining a remedial action to be taken to avoid the failure or the abnormality of the electronic apparatus when the occurrence of the failure or the abnormality of the electronic apparatus is predicted” in claim 9. 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 “circuitry” and “display” in claim 1, “an electronic apparatus”, “circuitry”, and “a display” in claim 8, “one or more processors” and “an electronic apparatus” in claim 9, 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 “predict an occurrence of a failure or an abnormality of the electronic apparatus based on the data” involves subjective choices as to the weights, factors, threshold of failure, and algorithm used to make the prediction and includes the concepts of evaluation, judgment, and opinion and “determine a remedial action to be taken to avoid the failure or the abnormality of the electronic apparatus when the circuitry predicts the occurrence of the failure or the abnormality” involves subjective choices as to the correspondence between remedial action and prediction and includes the concepts of evaluation and judgment in claim 1,
“predict an occurrence of a failure or an abnormality of the electronic apparatus based on the data” involves subjective choices as to the weights, factors, threshold of failure, and algorithm used to make the prediction and includes the concepts of evaluation, judgment, and opinion and “determine a remedial action to be taken avoid the failure or the abnormality of the electronic apparatus when the circuitry predicts the occurrence of the failure or the abnormality of the electronic apparatus” involves subjective choices as to the correspondence between remedial action and prediction and includes the concepts of evaluation and judgment in claim 8, and
“predicting an occurrence of a failure or an abnormality of the electronic apparatus based on the data” involves subjective choices as to the weights, factors, threshold of failure, and algorithm used to make the prediction and includes the concepts of evaluation, judgment, and opinion and “determining a remedial action to be taken to avoid the failure or the abnormality of the electronic apparatus when the occurrence of the failure or the abnormality of the electronic apparatus is predicted” involves subjective choices as to the correspondence between remedial action and prediction and includes the concepts of evaluation and judgment in claim 9. 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited including “acquiring data” and “displaying the remedial action” 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 “performing a remedial 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. The examiner notes that “failure” and “remedial action” are a generic problem and solution and is equivalent to “apply it”, applying a generic “remedial action” or solution to any and all “failures” or problems. The examiner also notes that the “remedial action” is not performed but simply displayed and as such does not improve the functioning of a computer. 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 (p. 6, ln. 14-34, fig. *).
Claim(s) 2-7 and 10 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 simply stores the remedial action 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) 3 increases prediction accuracy which involves a mental process given the subjective “accuracy” 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 displays information 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 involves a mental process given the subjective criteria to stop the display of the remedial action 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 simply displays detailed information on the remedial action 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 further details the display 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) 10 simply provides the medium embodiment of the method 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) 1-10 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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mahamuni (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0018199).
Regarding claim 1, Mahamuni discloses an information providing system comprising:
circuitry configured to: acquire data for determining a status of an electronic apparatus (In step 609, the batch management module 213 may monitor the collected messages, logs, process-level information and performance metrics in real time, updating the table of processes as new processes are invoked by the batch jobs during run-time, [0111], fig. 6A, In step 627 of method 600, potential batch job failures within a batch job queue of batch applications 210 may be identified and/or remediated before executing the potentially failed batch job in the queue. Batch management module 213 may scan the table of processes for potential batch job failures within the job queue, by searching for queued batch jobs mapped within the tables to the same processes invoked by the previously executed batch job, [0116], fig. 6B, [0120, 0123], fig. 7, 8);
predict an occurrence of a failure or an abnormality of the electronic apparatus based on the data (In step 629, any queued batch jobs mapped to invoked processes expected to cause batch job failure may be proactively flagged as a potential batch job failure, [0116], fig. 6B, FIG. 7 depicts a method of predicting potential batch job failures using AI learning techniques, such as RNN/LSTM models to predict code paths invoked by batch jobs, and from the dynamic code paths, identifying invoked processes that may cause the batch jobs to fail, [0118], [0120] fig. 7, a method 800 for implementing anomaly detection for the purpose of predicting and/or preventing batch job failures. Embodiments of method 800 may be implemented as a stand-alone method for predicting potential batch job failures or may be integrated into method 600 or method 700 described in detail above and compliment these additional techniques of batch job failure prediction, prevention and remediation, [0122], [0124], fig. 8); and
determine a remedial action to be taken to avoid the failure or the abnormality of the electronic apparatus when the circuitry predicts the occurrence of the failure or the abnormality (knowledge base 243 may apply one or more machine learning algorithms and analytics to perform a root cause analysis of the batch job failures based on the previous historical batch job failures, in order to identify an underlying root cause for the batch job failure and previously successful remediation steps of the historical batch job failures that may alleviate the failure of the present batch job failure being analyzed, [0112], allows a new recommendation for a new remediation action to be presented, based on the updated data and revised machine-learning algorithm of the knowledge base 243, [0114]); and
a display to display the remedial action when the remedial action can be performed by a user (In step 617, the output of the RCA results may display a recommendation for one or more remediation actions that may be implemented either automatically and/or by a system admin or operator that may alleviate the batch job failure if the batch job was re-executed. The knowledge base's 243 recommendation may explain the reasoning of the knowledge base for the underlying recommendation and a predicted level of success the proposed recommendation may have for remediating the batch job failure into a successfully completed batch job, [0113], in step 631, viewing tool 229 may display a notification to one or more front-end systems 245, 247, 249 indicating to a system admin or operator an advised action to take in order to prevent the potential batch job failure from occurring, [0116], In step 717 of the method 700 a notification is outputted by viewing tool 229 or printing tool 231 for display. For example, by displaying the notification on a front-end system 245, 247, 249 to a system admin or system operator. Embodiments of the notification being presented and displayed may advise a recommended action to take to prevent the potential batch job failures proactively flagged in step 715 from occurring, [0121], In step 819, an alert, notification or report describing the potential batch job failures is sent to the system admin or system operator and may include one or more recommended remedial actions for alleviating the predicted batch job failures, [0124]).
Regarding claim 2, Mahamuni discloses wherein the circuitry stores the remedial action in a memory when the remedial action cannot be performed by the user (recommended remediation action provided by the knowledge base 243, [0114], fig. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 3, Mahamuni discloses wherein the circuitry processes the acquired data so that prediction accuracy by the circuitry increases (wherein the knowledge base 243 is updated with the additional error information and the results of the batch job failure following the implementation of the unsuccessful remediation action. The knowledge base 243 updates the machine-learning algorithm with the updated feedback as the method returns to step 617 and allows a new recommendation for a new remediation action to be presented, based on the updated data and revised machine-learning algorithm of the knowledge base 243, [0114], update the knowledge base records, improving future analysis about similar batch job failures that might be encountered and solved in a similar manner, [0115], [0117, 0121]).
Regarding claim 4, Mahamuni discloses wherein the display further displays different information based on a determination indicating whether the failure or the abnormality is improved after execution of the remedial action ([0113, 0116, 0121, 0124]).
Regarding claim 5, Mahamuni discloses wherein the display stops displaying the remedial action, when a predetermined time period has elapsed after the remedial action is displayed, or when the remedial action is performed more than a predetermined number of times (In step 617, the output of the RCA results may display a recommendation for one or more remediation actions that may be implemented either automatically and/or by a system admin or operator that may alleviate the batch job failure if the batch job was re-executed, [0113], The knowledge base 243 updates the machine-learning algorithm with the updated feedback as the method returns to step 617 and allows a new recommendation for a new remediation action to be presented, based on the updated data and revised machine-learning algorithm of the knowledge base 243, [0114], in step 631, viewing tool 229 may display a notification to one or more front-end systems 245, 247, 249 indicating to a system admin or operator an advised action to take in order to prevent the potential batch job failure from occurring, [0116], fig. 6B, The examiner notes that after the notification display in step 617, the remediation action is implemented in step 619, and thus performed once. Next it either repeats 617 and 619, changing the display, and therefore stopping the display of the previous remedial action after implementing it once. Alternatively, if the action alleviates the failure, then in step 629 another action is displayed, thus stopping the previous display after one performance of the remedial action. The examiner also notes that stopping the display of a notification after a set amount of time or after the issue has been resolved is extremely well known in the art).
Regarding claim 6, Mahamuni discloses wherein the display displays a detailed information on the remedial action in response to an operation by the user or a maintenance person, and wherein the detailed information varies depending on whether the detailed information is for the user or for the maintenance person ([0113, 0116, 0121, 0124]).
Regarding claim 7, Mahamuni discloses wherein the display is included in an information terminal different from the electronic apparatus (display 118, [0030], fig. 1).
Regarding claim(s) 8-10, claim(s) 8-10 recite(s) substantially similar limitations to claim(s) 1 and is(are) therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
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
Prosecution Insights