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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patino Virano (US 2022/0195861 A1), and further in view of Vander Broek (US 2015/0213631 A1).
For claim 1,
Patino Virano teaches an apparatus comprising: a processor that executes instructions srored in a memory to configure the processor to: ingest data from a plurality of systems through a software application (see figures 2-3, 10, paragraphs [0005] last 10 lines: view blocks 202, 204, 302 as said data ingested to block 206; view hook load, pump, etc. as said systems); divide the data into a plurality of bins based on binning configuration settings (see figure 4A, [0032], [0051], [0020], and other locations: view partitioning and/or splitting as said dividing; view buckets as said bins; view partitioning based on states as said configuration); identify a bin of the plurality of bins that contains an anomaly at a point in time, based on thresholds for the plurality of bins (see [0006], [0080], [0034], and other locations; multiple thresholds and they are adjustable; the point in time is of the time series); identify a different bin of the plurality of bins that does not contain the anomaly at the point in time, based on the thresholds (see [0054] and other locations: view time series with non-anomalous data as said); generate a heat map [], the heat map comprising a plurality of display elements [], wherein each display element of the plurality of display elements corresponds to a bin of the plurality of bins, and render a display element of the plurality of display elements corresponds to a bin with the anomaly with a different visual appearance than a display element that corresponds to the different bin that does not contain the anomaly (see [0087] and other locations: view coloring or patterns as said visual appearance
Patino Virano does not explicitly “arranged in a grid pattern” and “via a graphical user interface (GUI)”
However, Vander Broek teaches “arranged in a grid pattern” and “via a graphical user interface (GUI)” (see [0022], [0082], [0092]: view cells as part of a grid)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patino Virano to include “arranged in a grid pattern” and “via a graphical user interface (GUI)”, as taught by Vander Broek, because each one of Patino Virano and Vander Broek teach data binning/bucketing therefore they are analogous arts and because these features are common to heat maps (see [0022], [0082], [0092]:).
For claim 2,
The combination of Patino Virano and Vander Broek teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above
Patino Virano further teaches the at least one processor is further configured to retrieve historical data from the plurality of systems, extract a rolling window of data from the historical data, and determine a maximum threshold and a minimum threshold for the plurality of bins based on data values included within the rolling window of data (see [0022], [0029], and other locations: parzens window is a rolling window; batch data as opposed to real-time is historical).
For claim 3,
The combination of Patino Virano and Vander Broek teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above
Patino Virano further teaches the at least one processor is configured to arrange the plurality of display elements in a two-dimensional array in which a first dimension of the two-dimensional array represents the plurality of bins and a second dimension of the two-dimensional array represents different periods of time (see [0062], figures 4A-B: buckets vs time series).
For claim 4,
The combination of Patino Virano and Vander Broek teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above
Patino Virano further teaches the at least one processor is further configured to generate a table of data values from the bin of data which contains the anomaly at the point in time, determine a cause of the anomaly based on execution of at least one artificial intelligence (AI) model on the table of data, and display the cause of the anomaly via the GUI (see [0032]: view machine learning as said AI: data is in memory addresses; range of addresses is a list ).
For claims 8-11,
the claims recite essentially similar limitations as claims 1-4 respectively; claims 8-11 are a method.
For claims 15-18,
the claims recite essentially similar limitations as claims 1-4 respectively; claims 15-18 are media.
Claims 5-7, 12-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patino Virano (US 2022/0195861 A1), further in view of Vander Broek (US 2015/0213631 A1), and further in view of Aguais (US 2003/0135450 A1).
For claim 5,
The combination of Patino Virano and Vander Broek teaches the limitations of claim 4 for the reasons above.
Patino Virano does not explicitly teach the at least one processor is further configured to determine a solution to the cause of the anomaly based on execution of the at least one AI model on the cause of the anomaly and the table of data, and display the solution via the GUI
However, Aguais teaches the at least one processor is further configured to determine a solution to the cause of the anomaly based on execution of the at least one AI model on the cause of the anomaly and the table of data, and display the solution via the GUI (see [0046]: view deleting an outlier as said solution to the anomaly)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patino Virano to include “the at least one processor is further configured to determine … GUI”, as taught by Aguais, because each one of Patino Virano and Aguais teach data binning/bucketing therefore they are analogous arts and because outlier occasionally occur and deleting them improves accuracy (see [0046]).
For claim 6,
The combination of Patino Virano and Aguais teaches the limitations of claim 5 for the reasons above.
Aguais further teaches the at least one processor is further configured to determine whether the solution corrects the anomaly based on a simulation of the solution (see [0042]).
For claim 7,
The combination of Patino Virano and Aguais teaches the limitations of claim 6 for the reasons above.
Patino Virano further teaches and in response to a determination that the solution corrects the anomaly, modify the display element corresponding to the bin of data with the anomaly to have a same visual appearance on the GUI as the display element corresponding to the different bin which does not contain the anomaly (see [0129]: display is updated with changes).
For claims 12-14,
the claims recite essentially similar limitations as claim 5-6 respectively; claim 12-13 are a method.
For claim 19,
the claims recite essentially similar limitations as claim 5; claim 19 is media.
For claim 20,
Patino Virano teaches the limitations of claim 15 for the reasons above.
Patino Virano does not explicitly teach “determining whether the solution corrects the anomaly based on a simulation of the solution”.
However, Aguais teaches determining whether the solution corrects the anomaly based on a simulation of the solution (see rejection to claim 6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patino Virano to include “determining whether the solution corrects the anomaly based on a simulation of the solution”, as taught by Aguais, because of the motivational reasons specified in claim 6.
Patino Virano further teaches and in response to a determination that the solution corrects the anomaly, modifying the display element corresponding to the bin of data with the anomaly to have a same visual appearance on the GUI as the display element corresponding to the different bin which does not contain the anomaly (see [0129]: display is updated with changes).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAIR LEIBOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-3796. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/YAIR LEIBOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights