CTNF 19/060,197 CTNF 84745 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 This action is in response to the application filed on 02/21/2025, in which claims 1-5 are presented for the examination. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 02/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings filed on 02/21/2025 are accepted by the examiner. Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As to claim 1: Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a manufacture or composition of matter. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). specifying a pattern; estimating a device; Yes, the limitation “specifying a pattern and estimating a device” is the abstract idea of a mental process (classification and correlating) that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). The additional elements, computer, recording medium and information logs. The claim merely uses a generic computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not improve the functionality of the computer or the other technology. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. The additional elements, such as logs, computer are well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional. The additional elements, individually and in combination, amount no more than implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, claim 1 recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent claims 2-3 are rejected for the same rationale as in claim 1. As to claim 4: Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a process. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). specifying a pattern; estimating a device; Yes, the limitation “specifying a pattern and estimating a device” is the abstract idea of a mental process (classification and correlating) that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). The additional elements, computer, recording medium and information logs. The claim merely uses a generic computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not improve the functionality of the computer or the other technology. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. The additional elements, such as logs, computer are well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional. The additional elements, individually and in combination, amount no more than implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer. As to claim 5: Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03. Yes, the claim is to a machine. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). specifying a pattern; estimating a device; Yes, the limitation “specifying a pattern and estimating a device” is the abstract idea of a mental process (classification and correlating) that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d). The additional elements, computer, recording medium and information logs. The claim merely uses a generic computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not improve the functionality of the computer or the other technology. Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05. The additional elements, such as logs, computer are well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional. The additional elements, individually and in combination, amount no more than implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer. Accordingly, claims 1-5 are directed to an abstract idea implemented using generic computer components and does not include significantly more, therefore, it is not patent-eligible under 35 USC § 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al. (US 2008/0177901, Watanabe) . As per claim 1, 4, 5, Watanabe discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a failure assistance program that performs failure assistance when a failure occurs in a control processing system in which a first device controls a third device via a second device by using a communication message, the failure assistance program for causing a computer to execute processing comprising: classifying a communication pattern used to identify communication, by using first information in which each of a plurality of communication messages transmitted from the first device to the second device is recorded (Fig. 1, communication pattern repository classifies and records communication patterns, [0052]-[0056]); generating relevance degree information that indicates a relevance degree between first communication performed between the first device and the second device and second communication performed between the second device and the third device, by using second information in which a communication log between the first device, the second device, and the third device is recorded, for each classified communication pattern (Abstract, [0038], [0006], ([0079], [0100], [0110], an obtaining a communication log containing a communication message delivered between a second device and a third device in accordance with a control message transmitted from a first device to the second device and log output from each managing module in a cross-sectoral manner and specifies correlation, [0006], “the first device controls the third device through the second device.); specifying a first communication pattern that corresponds to a communication message when a failure occurs, from among the plurality of classified communication patterns, when a failure occurs in the second device; and ([0039], when abnormality occurs in a network due to failure or the like and as a result no response message is transmitted from the managing module in response to an instruction message transmitted from the execution control module); estimating the third device that is a communication destination to be controlled by the first device that is a communication source, with reference to the relevance degree information that corresponds to the specified first communication pattern ([0108], The coupling log analyzer 252 estimates an influence range of the restriction by the communication data specified in operation S505 (operation S506). Specifically, the coupling log analyzer 252 judges whether the communication data specified in operation S503 suffers the influence of the restriction by the communication data specified in operation S505, [0006], “the first device controls the third device through the second device). As per claim 2, Watanabe discloses the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the processing of generating the relevance degree information selects the first communication and the second communication at a time approximate to an occurrence time of the communication message, from the second information, for each communication message included in the first information ([0049], [0075], execution log outs from each devices and occurrence time is stored and used for later analysis) and generates the relevance degree information that indicates the number of times of communications from the selected first communication to the selected second communication and corresponds to a communication pattern in which the communication message is classified ([0049], [0075], [0108], [0112], execution log information is analyzed to determine the frequency of the communication pattern) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892 . Shimotsuma teaches an abnormality cause specification support system that holds communication relation information describing communication history between terminals. Tak teaches a method for monitoring a distributed application for errors includes constructing a transaction path for each request received by the distributed application, detecting a writing action to a log of the distributed application, and annotating the transaction path. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMINI B PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3902. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-4:30. 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 on 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 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. /KAMINI B PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/060,197 Page 2 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/060,197 Page 3 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/060,197 Page 4 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/060,197 Page 5 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/060,197 Page 6 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/060,197 Page 7 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/060,197 Page 8 Art Unit: 2114 Application/Control Number: 19/060,197 Page 9 Art Unit: 2114
Prosecution Insights