DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final, First Office Action on the Merits in response to communications filed February 6, 2025. Claims 1–19 are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a decoder module” in claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As noted above, claim 18 recites “a decoder module”, which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the Specification does not disclose the structure corresponding to the recited “decoder module”. Although paragraph 54 of the Specification indicates that modules “may be implemented as electronic hardware, computer software, or combinations of both,” the Specification does not disclose the specific implementation of the recited “decoder module”. As a result, claim 18 includes subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to convey possession of the invention, and claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 5–6 and 8–19 are 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.
Claim 5 recites “the CI” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the CI” in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 5 is interpreted as reciting “an instance identifier associated with [[the]] a CI” in line 2.
In view of the above, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 8–17, which depend from claim 5, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 6 and 8–17 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “the environment(s)” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the environment(s)” in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 8 is interpreted as reciting “using a CI relationships discovery module to group the plurality of CIs based at least in part on [[the]] environment(s) in which the CIs are deployed.”
In view of the above, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “the CIs belonging to a same environment” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the CIs belonging to a same environment” in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 9 is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] CIs belonging to a same environment” in line 1.
In view of the above, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites “the temporal correlation of customer incidents” in line 1 and subsequently recites “the customer incidents” in line 3. However, claim 10, from which claim 12 depends, previously recites “temporal correlation of customer incidents”. As a result, the scope of claim 12 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitations of “customer incidents” to reference the other recitations or intends to introduce distinct elements.
For purposes of examination, claim 12 is interpreted as reciting “the temporal correlation of the customer incidents” in line 1.
In view of the above, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites “the rolling time window” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the rolling time window” in the claim.
For purposes of examination, claim 13 is interpreted as reciting the “method of claim [[10]]12”.
In view of the above, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the term “highly” when reciting “highly correlated customer incidents and CIs”. The term “highly” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In view of the above, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites “a decoder module” in line 3. As noted above, the claim limitation reciting “a decoder module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Although paragraph 54 of the Specification indicates that modules “may be implemented as electronic hardware, computer software, or combinations of both,” the Specification does not disclose the specific implementation of the recited “decoder module”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 19 recites “a software module obtaining” and “a software module using”. Examiner submits that the second recitation of “a software module” renders the scope of the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitation to reference the first recitation or intends to introduce a second, different “software module”.
For purposes of examination, claim 19 is interpreted as reciting “[[a]] the software module using a decoder”.
In view of the above, claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In view of the above, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant thoroughly review the claims for compliance with the requirements set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–19 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “obtaining customer incident data reported by one or more customers”; and functionality to “process the customer incident data to generate an output, wherein the output comprises a plurality of configuration items (CIs) discovered, derived, or extracted from the customer incident data.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity related to commercial business relations because the elements describe a process for evaluating a customer incident. Further, the elements recite mental processes because the elements embody observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 18–19 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 18–19 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2–17 further describe the process for evaluating a customer incident and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. Further, claim 7 recites mathematical concepts because, when considered in view of Applicant’s Specification, the claim recites mathematical relationships. As a result, claims 2–17 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include an implicit computer, a step of “using a decoder module”, and an element disclosing that “data is pre-encoded using one or more encoding techniques”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer element is a generic computing component that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 18–19 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 18 further includes a processor and claim 19 further includes a computer-readable storage media, one or more processors, and an application, the additional elements, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 18–19 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claim 8 includes an additional element that does not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional element includes a discovery module. When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claim 8 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2–7 and 9–17 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–7 and 9–17 depend. As a result, claims 2–7 and 9–17 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include an implicit computer, a step of “using a decoder module”, and an element disclosing that “data is pre-encoded using one or more encoding techniques”. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer element is a generic computing component that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 18–19 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 18 further includes a processor and claim 19 further includes a computer-readable storage media, one or more processors, and an application, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the remaining additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 18–19 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claim 8 includes an additional element that does not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional element includes a discovery module. The additional element does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 8 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2–7 and 9–17 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–7 and 9–17 depend. As a result, claims 2–7 and 9–17 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1–9 and 18–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tilikin et al. (U.S. 2018/0300041) in view of DICHIU et al. (WO 2020/120429).
Claims 1 and 18–19: Tilikin discloses a computer-implemented method (See FIG. 2) for deriving operational insights about customer infrastructure, the method comprising:
(a) obtaining customer incident data reported by one or more customers, wherein the customer incident data is specific or unique to the one or more customers (See paragraph 61, in view of paragraphs 66–67, wherein customer event data is obtained and normalized using normalization and transformation techniques; see also paragraph 46, wherein the multi-tenant architecture can distinguish between and segregate data between customers, and paragraph 48, wherein the architecture utilizes customer instances to isolate customer data); and
(b) directly process the customer incident data to generate an output, wherein the output comprises a plurality of configuration items (CIs) discovered, derived, or extracted from the customer incident data (See paragraphs 61–62, in view of FIG. 6 and paragraphs 84–85, wherein event impact is generated with respect to a given CI and any CI nodes identified as related to the given CI; see also FIG. 10B–C and paragraphs 106 and 109). Tilikin does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Dichiu discloses wherein the customer incident data is pre-encoded using one or more encoding techniques that are specific or unique to the one or more customers (See FIG. 6 and paragraphs 36–37, in view of paragraph 42, wherein events are encoded using a client-specific identifier and profile; see also FIG. 8A–B); and
using a decoder module to directly process the customer incident data (See FIG. 8A–B, wherein event data is analyzed using an encoder and a corresponding decoder).
Tilikin discloses a system directed to processing and managing customer impact events. Dichiu discloses a system directed to identifying and managing client security events. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing customer incidents. The technique of utilizing an encoder/decoder is applicable to the system of Tilikin as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing customer incidents.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Dichiu would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Dichiu to the teachings of Tilikin would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate customer incident management into similar systems. Further, applying an encoder/decoder to Tilikin would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
With respect to claim 18, Tilikin discloses a computer-implemented system comprising at least one processor and instructions causing the at least one processor to perform operations (See FIG. 2 and paragraph 54).
With respect to claim 19, Tilikin discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media encoded with instructions executable by one or more processors to provide an application (See FIG. 2 and paragraphs 53–54, in view of paragraph 121).
Claim 2: Although Tilikin discloses an output comprising the plurality of CIs (See citations above), Tilikin does not expressly disclose the remaining elements of claim 2.
Dichiu discloses wherein the decoder module does not require processing of other data to generate the output (See FIG. 8A–B and paragraphs 61–62, wherein the decoder processes encoded data).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Dichiu would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 3: As an initial matter, Examiner notes that the elements of claim 3 are afforded limited patentable weight because the elements do not patentably limit the method steps of claim 1. More particularly, claim 1 includes a step for obtaining data that is pre-encoded. The claim does not, however, include any steps for encoding or pre-encoding. As a result, the elements of claim 3 amount to no more than nonfunctional descriptive material that does not patentably limit the step of “obtaining”. The elements are addressed only in the interest of compact prosecution.
Tilikin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the customer incident data is in a form of a configuration item (CI) string (See FIG. 8 and paragraph 98, wherein the event information is stored using an alphanumeric record string including a CI identifier string). Tilikin does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Dichiu discloses wherein the data is pre-encoded in a form of a string (See FIG. 6 and paragraphs 36–37, in view of paragraph 42, wherein events are encoded using a client-specific identifier and profile; see also FIG. 8A–B).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Dichiu would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 4: As an initial matter, Examiner notes that the elements of claim 4 are afforded limited patentable weight because the elements do not patentably limit the method steps of claim 1. More particularly, claim 1 includes a step for obtaining data that is pre-encoded. The claim does not, however, include any steps for encoding or pre-encoding. As a result, the elements of claim 4 amount to no more than nonfunctional descriptive material that does not patentably limit the step of “obtaining”. The elements are addressed only in the interest of compact prosecution.
Tilikin discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the CI string comprises a CI name and a set of CI attributes (See FIG. 8 and paragraph 98, wherein the alphanumeric record string includes a CI identifier string and other attributes; see also paragraph 70, in view of paragraphs 37 and 81).
Claim 5: As an initial matter, Examiner notes that the elements of claim 5 are afforded limited patentable weight because the elements do not patentably limit the method steps of claim 1. More particularly, claim 1 includes a step for obtaining data that is pre-encoded. The claim does not, however, include any steps for encoding or pre-encoding. As a result, the elements of claim 5 amount to no more than nonfunctional descriptive material that does not patentably limit the step of “obtaining”. The elements are addressed only in the interest of compact prosecution.
Tilikin discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the set of CI attributes comprises a region, an environment, a type and/or an instance identifier associated with the CI (See FIG. 8 and paragraph 98, wherein a business service identifier defines an environment of the CI).
Claim 6: Tilikin discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the plurality of CIs in the output comprises the CI name and the set of CI attributes discovered, derived or extracted from the CI string (See FIG. 8 and paragraph 98, wherein the event information is stored using alphanumeric strings, including CI identifier and attribute strings within the record string). Tilikin does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Dichiu discloses a decoder module (See FIG. 8A–B, wherein event data is analyzed using an encoder and a corresponding decoder).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Dichiu would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 7: Tilikin does not expressly disclose the elements of claim 7.
Dichiu discloses wherein the decoder module uses n-gram based string decoding using algebraic signatures to directly process the customer incident data (See paragraphs 60–61, wherein the encoder/decoder utilize skip-gram decoding to process the event data).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Dichiu would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 8: Tilikin discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising:(c) using a CI relationships discovery module to group the plurality of CIs based at least in part on the environment(s) in which the CIs are deployed (See paragraphs 81–82, wherein the discovery process identifies CIs and relationships between CIs; see also paragraphs 85–86).
Claim 9: As an initial matter, Examiner notes that the elements of claim 9 are afforded limited patentable weight because the elements do not patentably limit the method steps of claims 1 and 3–6. More particularly, claims 1 and 3–6 include steps for obtaining data and using a decoder. The claims do not, however, include any steps for grouping or isolating the plurality of CIs. As a result, the elements of claim 9 amount to no more than nonfunctional descriptive material and/or an intended use that does not patentably limit the steps of “obtaining” or “using”. The elements are addressed only in the interest of compact prosecution.
Tilikin discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the CIs belonging to a same environment are grouped together to allow logical isolation of the plurality of CIs (See paragraphs 81–82, in view of paragraph 86, wherein CIs are grouped with respect to a given business service).
Claims 10–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tilikin et al. (U.S. 2018/0300041) in view of DICHIU et al. (WO 2020/120429), and in further view of Makovsky et al. (U.S. 2019/0303469).
Claim 10: As indicated above, Tilikin and Dichiu disclose the elements of claims 1 and 3–6.
Tilikin discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising using the CI relationships discovery module to analyze correlation of customer incidents, wherein correlated customer incidents are associated with corresponding CIs (See paragraphs 85–86, in view of paragraphs 69–70, wherein discovered CI relationships are used for evaluating event impacts; see also paragraphs 73–74). Although Tilikin discloses analyzing temporal attributes of events (See paragraphs 73–74), Tilikin and Dichiu do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Makovsky discloses functionality to analyze temporal correlation of customer incidents, wherein time-correlated customer incidents are associated with corresponding CIs to be time-correlated (See paragraph 45, in view of paragraphs 19 and 33, wherein “alert group relationships can be used to enable temporal correlations between alerts and CIs”).
As disclosed above, Tilikin discloses a system directed to processing and managing customer impact events, and Dichiu discloses a system directed to identifying and managing client security events. Makovsky discloses a system directed to managing and evaluating client alert instances. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing customer incidents. The technique of utilizing temporal correlations is applicable to the systems of Tilikin and Dichiu as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing customer incidents.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Makovsky would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Makovsky to the teachings of Tilikin and Dichiu would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate customer incident management into similar systems. Further, applying temporal correlations to Tilikin and Dichiu would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
Claim 11: Although Tilikin discloses corresponding CIs (See citations above), Tilikin and Dichiu do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Makovsky discloses wherein the corresponding CIs to be time-correlated are indicative that said corresponding CIs are related (See paragraph 45, in view of paragraphs 19 and 33, wherein alert groups are identified automatically in the context of temporal correlations).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Makovsky would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 10.
Claims 12–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tilikin et al. (U.S. 2018/0300041) in view of DICHIU et al. (WO 2020/120429), and in further view of Makovsky et al. (U.S. 2019/0303469) and Brown (U.S. 2019/0207969).
Claim 12: As indicated above, Tilikin, Dichiu, and Makovsky disclose the elements of claims 1, 3–6, and 10. Although Tilikin discloses analyzing temporal attributes of events (See paragraphs 73–74), Tilikin does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Dichiu discloses a micro epoch (See paragraph 36, wherein a timing interval is disclosed “of the order of [[]] seconds”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Dichiu would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Tilikin and Dichiu do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Makovsky discloses wherein the temporal correlation of customer incidents is analyzed using an interval, wherein the interval comprises a time window in which the CI relationships discovery module tracks appearances of the customer incidents and the corresponding CIs. (See paragraph 45, in view of paragraphs 19 and 33, wherein incidents are analyzed with respect to related CI using a predefined time window).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Makovsky would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 10. Tilikin, Dichiu, and Makovsky do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Brown discloses wherein the temporal correlation of customer incidents is analyzed using an epoch, wherein the epoch comprises a rolling time window (See paragraphs 202–203, wherein events are monitored using a configurable timespan that utilizes a rolling window).
As disclosed above, Tilikin discloses a system directed to processing and managing customer impact events, Dichiu discloses a system directed to identifying and managing client security events, and Makovsky discloses a system directed to managing and evaluating client alert instances. Brown discloses a system directed to detecting and analyzing malicious events. Each reference discloses a system directed to managing customer incidents. The technique of utilizing a rolling window is applicable to the systems of Tilikin, Dichiu, and Makovsky as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to managing customer incidents.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Brown would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Brown to the teachings of Tilikin, Dichiu, and Makovsky would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate customer incident management into similar systems. Further, applying a rolling window to Tilikin, Dichiu, and Makovsky would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
Claim 13: As an initial matter, Examiner notes that the elements of claim 13 are afforded limited patentable weight because the elements do not patentably limit the method steps of claims 1, 3–6, and 10. More particularly, the elements of claim 13 amount to no more than nonfunctional descriptive material and do not patentably limit the previous steps. The elements are addressed only in the interest of compact prosecution.
Tilikin does not expressly disclose the elements of claim 13.
Dichiu discloses wherein the time window is about 10 seconds (See paragraph 36, wherein a timing interval is disclosed “of the order of [[]] seconds”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Dichiu would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Tilikin, Dichiu, and Makovsky do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Brown discloses the rolling time window (See paragraphs 202–203, wherein events are monitored using a configurable timespan that utilizes a rolling window).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Brown would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 12.
Claim 14: As an initial matter, Examiner notes that the elements of claim 14 are afforded limited patentable weight because the elements do not patentably limit the method steps of claims 1, 3–6, 10, and 12. More particularly, the elements of claim 14 amount to no more than nonfunctional descriptive material and/or an intended use and do not patentably limit the previous steps. The elements are addressed only in the interest of compact prosecution.
Although Tilikin discloses that the CI relationships discovery module focuses on discovery of highly correlated customer incidents and CIs (See paragraphs 85–86, in view of paragraphs 69–70, wherein discovered CI relationships are used for evaluating event impacts; see also paragraphs 73–74), Tilikin does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Dichiu discloses a micro epoch (See paragraph 36, wherein a timing interval is disclosed “of the order of [[]] seconds”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Dichiu would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Tilikin, Dichiu, and Makovsky do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Brown discloses wherein a length of the epoch is set to ensure that the CI relationships discovery module focuses on discovery of highly correlated customer incidents (See paragraphs 202–203, wherein events are monitored using a configurable timespan that utilizes a rolling window).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Brown would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 12.
Claim 15: Tilikin discloses the method of claim 12, further using the CI relationships discovery module to track a direction of a relationship between correlated CIs (See paragraph 70, in view of paragraphs 81–82, wherein parent-child relationships are discovered, and wherein alerts are monitored with respect to temporal attributes). Tilikin and Dichiu do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Makovsky discloses a relationship between time-correlated CIs (See paragraph 45, in view of paragraphs 19 and 33, wherein incidents are analyzed with respect to related CI using a predefined time window).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Makovsky would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 10.
Claim 16: Although Tilikin discloses wherein the CI relationships discovery module is used to determine a CI correlation (See paragraphs 81–82), Tilikin and Dichiu do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Makovsky discloses functionality to determine a CI correlation strength of correlated CI pairs (See paragraphs 45–46, wherein relationships scores are generated for clustered CI groups).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Makovsky would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 10. Tilikin, Dichiu, and Makovsky do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Brown discloses computing a distribution of correlated elements (See paragraphs 96–97, wherein a distribution of events is computed).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Brown would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 12.
Claim 17: Tilikin discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising: automatically constructing a CI relationship graph and updating the CI relationship graph using CI relationships discovered by the CI relationships discovery module (See FIG. 10B and paragraphs 81–83, wherein a CI relationship graph is generated and displayed, and wherein the discovery process may be performed iteratively; see also paragraphs 85–86). Tilikin, Dichiu, and Makovsky do not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Brown discloses real-time updates (See paragraph 151, wherein events are “captured and processed substantially in real time”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Brown would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 12.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Arendt et al. (U.S. 2021/0034440) discloses a system directed to managing customer events and related configuration items;
SARKAR et al. (U.S. 2016/0371135) discloses a system directed to managing customer incidents by discovering and mapping configuration items; and
Steuer et al. (U.S. 2020/0110823) discloses a system directed to mapping configuration items to incident reports in order to managing customer incidents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights