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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) is/are drawn to software per se.
Claim(s) 1 recites a system comprising “a monitoring system… a data center orchestrator and a self-healing engine...” It does not comprise hardware in the par 15-19 of the Spec. As such, the noted claim(s) is/are drawn to software per se. It is suggested that a “processor” is recited in the claim(s).
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. However, the claimed invention is directed to performing steps that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind. An analysis of the claims regarding subject matter eligibility follows:
Step1: Claim(s) 1-20 recite a method and a system, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim(s) 1, 11 recite generating alert data in response to a data center fault indicated by the telemetry data; managing operation of the data center via a data center orchestrator, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations entirely in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the steps of “generating” and “managing” may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, and judgement (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection Ill). For example, “generating” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses a user generating alert data in mind in response to a data center fault indicated by the telemetry data, and “managing” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses the user, managing operation of the data center in mind via a data center orchestrator.
Claim(s) 2-10, 12-20 recite further limitations that fall under the judicial exception as recited in claim(s) 1, 11. Each of the further limitations encompass performance of the steps within the human mind.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The additional elements recited in claim(s) 1, 11, “receiving telemetry data from the data center;” “providing a self-healing engine that operates via an application programming interface(API) configured to receive the alert data, topology data corresponding to a topology of the data center, and user intent data and to select and execute one or more skills in conjunction with the data center orchestrator to correct the data center fault” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations are directed to implementing the abstract idea recite mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim(s) 2-10, 12-20 recite further details regarding LLM, natural language, code, goal and sub-goals. These claims contain no additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim(s) 1, 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong 2 above, the recitations of “receiving telemetry data from the data center;” “providing a self-healing engine that operates via an application programming interface(API) configured to receive the alert data, topology data corresponding to a topology of the data center, and user intent data and to select and execute one or more skills in conjunction with the data center orchestrator to correct the data center fault” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, and thus are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II). The claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, and thus are mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim(s) 2-10, 12-20, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they simply apply the exception using a generic computer.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 recite an abstract idea without significantly more, and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 10-11, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GOLDY et al. (CN116909831A).
GOLDY discloses:
1. A computer system for use with a data center comprising:
a monitoring system configured to receive telemetry data from the data center and to generate alert data in response to a data center fault indicated by the telemetry data; (p 6: In some cases, clients of a data center may experience network problems such as increased latency, packet loss, low network traffic, or slow workload processing. The solution of this problem may be complicated by the deployment of workloads in large multi-tenant data centers. Telemetry data, such as those provided by telemetry services and analyzed by performance monitoring systems, may be used to help solve problems in data centers.)
a data center orchestrator (304) coupled to the monitoring system that is configured to manage operation of the data center; and (p 9: The edge services platform 300 may include a network automation platform 306 and an orchestrator 304; p 6: Edge service controller 28 may include a performance monitoring system (shown in more detail in fig. 5, 6, 9, and 12) having a collector for collecting telemetry data and an alarm rule evaluator for analyzing the telemetry data according to alarm rules based on whether the telemetry data does or does not generate an alarm, as will be explained further below)
a self-healing engine that operates via an application programming interface (API) configured to receive the alert data, topology data corresponding to a topology of the data center, and user intent data and to select and execute one or more skills in conjunction with the data center orchestrator to correct the data center fault. (p 18: Thus, the efficiency and operation of the performance monitoring system is improved as follows: the problem can be discovered and solved faster and the computational resources for determining the network problem can be saved. This may be the case for both the performance monitoring system itself and the network being monitored because the correlation rules that utilize the associated correlation metrics mean that the uncorrelated metrics are not derived by the network nor collected by the performance monitoring system 1200; p 16: the following rule analysis may be used: … b) The Relevant Rule Hit Rate (RRHR) may be defined as the estimated success rate of other alert rules related to a given alert rule. For example, two rules may be considered related rules if they contain metrics from the same source in the network. This metric provides the overall health of the system; p 9: Each/Various API may provide a network automation platform and/or a performance monitoring system for the user interface so as to enable, for example, entering and automatically configuring an intentional-based policy regarding network operation and performance; Edge service controller 28 may transmit information describing the services available on NIC 13, the topology of NIC structure 23, or other information about the edge service platform to a orchestration system (orchestration system) of network controller 24 (not shown); p 17: Alert rules, such as user-created alert rules, may be created and stored in alert rule database 920.)
10. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the one or more skills include one or more user- provided skills that are defined in natural language. (p 9, 10, 12: natural language)
Claim(s) 11, 20 is/are rejected as being the method implemented by the system of claim(s) 1, 10, and is/are rejected on the same grounds.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-9, 12-19 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE LIN whose telephone number is (571)431-0706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571) 272-3655. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/KATHERINE LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights