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 § 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 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fletcher (U.S. Pub 2016/0105338 A1)
Claim 1
An indicator query method, comprising:
acquiring an indicator query instruction ([0454], line 2, “… creating a service definition for a service…”), wherein the indicator query instruction carries an indicator name of a target indicator ([0454], line 2, “… creating a service definition for a service…” [0461], line 2-7, “… defining elements of a service definition… creating and/or editing a title 1404 of a service definition…” <examiner note: fig. 13, target indicator [Wingdings font/0xF3] web hosting, indicator name [Wingdings font/0xF3] Title: “web hosting” 1302>) and target feature information about the target indicator ([0274], “… creates one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) corresponding to one or more aspects of the service. An aspect of a service may refer to a certain characteristic of the service that can be measured at various points in time during the operation of the service. For example, aspects of a web hosting service may include request response time, CPU usage, and memory usage…” [0456], line 1-4, “… creates one or more key performance indicators for the service and associates the key performance indicators with the service definition of the service…” <examiner note: aspects (e.g., include request response time, CPU usage, and memory usage) of web hosting service [Wingdings font/0xF3] target feature information of the target indicator>);
determining target operation information about the target indicator based on the indicator name ([0861], line 2-7, “… a service-monitoring dashboard that presents a visual overview of how one or more services and/or one or more aspects of the services are performing… for example, a web hosting service …” [0949], line 1-4, “… At block 4751, the computing machine identifies one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) for one or more services to be monitored via a service-monitoring dashboard…”), wherein the target operation information comprises a target operation parameter ([0952], line 1-2, “… identifies a time range…” <examiner note: time range [Wingdings font/0xF3] target operation parameter>) and a target operation rule ([0955], line 4-12, “… The value may be a statistic calculated based on one or more values extracted from a specific field in the set of machine data or events when the search query is executed. The statistic may be an average of the extracted values, a mean of the extracted values, a maximum of the extracted values, a last value of the extracted values, etc. A single value widget style, a Noel gauge widget style, and trend indicator widget style can represent a KPI using a single value….” <examiner note: the value of aspects of the service/target indicator are calculated based on average, mean, maximum, and so on [Wingdings font/0xF3] target operation rule>);
determining, from an indicator pre-computation data set, indicator intermediate data corresponding to the target operation parameter and the target feature information ([0956], line 5-7, “… machine data can be represented as events. The machine data used to derive the one or more KPI values…” [0952], line 4-6, “… The time range can be used to indicate which events to use for the search queries for the identified KPIs…” <examiner note: indicator intermediate data [Wingdings font/0xF3] KPI values are determined based on aspects (i.e., KPI) of the service/indicator and user-defined time range [Wingdings font/0xF3] target operation parameter>), wherein the indicator pre-computation data set is obtained by pre-computation based on original indicator data ([0246], line 2-10, “… An event-processing system can aggregate heterogeneous machine-generated data (machine data) received from various sources… The aggregated machine data can be processed and represented as events…” <examiner note: original indicator data [Wingdings font/0xF3] machine-generated data; indicator pre-computation data set [Wingdings font/0xF3] events>);
determining a query result of the target indicator based on the indicator intermediate data and the target operation rule ([0960], “… At block 4761, for each KPI, the computing machine generates the KPI widget using the KPI widget style and the value or set of values produced for the respective KPI…” [0955], “… The value may be a statistic calculated… The statistic may be an average of the extracted values, a mean of the extracted values, a maximum of the extracted values, a last value of the extracted values, etc…” [0226], line 3-5, “… an aggregate KPI can be configured and calculated for a service to represent the overall health of a service…”)
Claims 9 and 10 are similar to claim 1. The claims are rejected based on the same reasons
Claim 11
Claim 1 is included, Fletcher discloses wherein the indicator query instruction may be triggered after a user inputs indicator-related information to be queried in the query interface, or generated based on selecting the indicator-related information to be queried in a pull-down menu option in the query interface ([0618], “… At block 3201, the computing machine identifies a service to evaluate. The service is provided by one or more entities. The computing system can receive user input, via one or more graphical interfaces, selecting a service to evaluate. The service can be represented by a service definition that associates the service with the entities as discussed in more detail above…” fig. 33A, fig. 34AR, fig. 34NR)
Claim 12
Claim 11 is included, Fletcher discloses wherein the indicator-related information is the indicator name and the target feature information ([0861], line 2-7, “… a service-monitoring dashboard that presents a visual overview of how one or more services and/or one or more aspects of the services are performing… for example, a web hosting service …” [0949], line 1-4, “… At block 4751, the computing machine identifies one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) for one or more services to be monitored via a service-monitoring dashboard…” [0274], “… creates one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) corresponding to one or more aspects of the service. An aspect of a service may refer to a certain characteristic of the service that can be measured at various points in time during the operation of the service. For example, aspects of a web hosting service may include request response time, CPU usage, and memory usage…” [0456], line 1-4, “… creates one or more key performance indicators for the service and associates the key performance indicators with the service definition of the service…”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding to claims 1-7 and 11-15
Claim 1
An indicator query method, comprising:
acquiring an indicator query instruction, wherein the indicator query instruction carries an indicator name of a target indicator and target feature information about the target indicator;
determining target operation information about the target indicator based on the indicator name, wherein the target operation information comprises a target operation parameter and a target operation rule;
determining, from an indicator pre-computation data set, indicator intermediate data corresponding to the target operation parameter and the target feature information, wherein the indicator pre-computation data set is obtained by pre-computation based on original indicator data;
determining a query result of the target indicator based on the indicator intermediate data and the target operation rule.
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least one step or act, including steps a) - h). Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Step b) determining target operation information about the target indicator based on the indicator name, wherein the target operation information comprises a target operation parameter and a target operation rule. step c) determining, from an indicator pre-computation data set, indicator intermediate data corresponding to the target operation parameter and the target feature information, wherein the indicator pre-computation data set is obtained by pre-computation based on original indicator data, and step c) determining a query result of the target indicator based on the indicator intermediate data and the target operation rule. Determining, given broadest reasonable interpretation is observation, evaluation, or judgment (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea)
“Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, steps b, c, and d fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Limitations (b) - (d) are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements/limitations
Step a) acquiring an indicator query instruction, wherein the indicator query instruction carries an indicator name of a target indicator and target feature information about the target indicator
a) MPEP § 2106.05(a) "Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field."
There is no improvement to Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field. The limitation a) is simply collecting data. The limitation does not make any improvements to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, or any other technologies.
b) MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine. The judicial exception does not apply to any particular machine.
The claim are silent regarding specific limitations directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory, network, database, or Internet, nor do applicant direct examiner’s attention to such specific limitations. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea on 'an Internet computer network' or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea."). Applying this reasoning here, the claim is not directed to a particular machine, but rather merely implement an abstract idea using generic computer components such as “indicator query instruction”, “indicator name”, “target feature information.” Thus, the claims fail to satisfy the "tied to a particular machine" prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
c) MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation.
The claim operates to collecting data and displaying calculated output. The steps are not a "transformation or reduction of an article into a different state or thing constituting patent-eligible subject matter[.]" See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd sub nom, Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010); see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("The mere manipulation or reorganization of data ... does not satisfy the transformation prong."). Applying this guidance here, the claims fail to satisfy the transformation prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
d) MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
This section of the MPEP guides: Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. 450 U.S. 175, ... (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to the use of the Arrhenius equation ( an abstract idea or law of nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding press. 450 U.S. at 177-78 .... The Court evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184... In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S._ .... In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity. MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The limitations a) collecting data is not meaningful limitations because collecting data is pre-solution activities. The limitations are not meaningful limitations.
e) MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The limitations a) collecting data is not a meaningful limitation because collecting data pre-solution activities
f) MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
[T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token pre- or post-solution activity-such as identifying a relevant audience, a category of use, field of use, or technological environment. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “Indicator query instruction”, “indicator name”, “target feature information.” limitations are simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the additional limitation a) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite any non-convention or non-generic arrangement because collecting data, ranking collected data, and displaying the results are all conventional activities. Taking these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when the elements are taken individually. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 2 recites “wherein a process of pre-calculating the indicator pre-computation data set, based on the original indicator data comprises: acquiring the original indicator data, wherein the original indicator data comprises original feature information about an indicator and original operation information about the indicator; in cases where the original feature information satisfies a pre-computation condition, pre-calculating the original operation information to obtain at least one piece of the indicator intermediate data; determining a set of corresponding relationships between the indicator intermediate data and the original feature information as the indicator pre-computation data set” This limitation is pre and post-solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 3. Claim 3 recites “wherein the original operation information comprises an original operation parameter and an original operation rule between the original operation parameters; the pre-computing the original operation information to obtain at least one piece of the indicator intermediate data comprises: decomposing the original operation information into at least one sub-operation according to the original operation rule; determining an operation result of each of the sub-operations as the indicator intermediate data” This limitation is pre and post-solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 depends on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Claim 4 recites “wherein the pre-computation condition comprises at least one of the following: the original feature information comprises an indicator pre-computation identifier, an appearance frequency of the indicator is higher than a pre-set frequency, and computation complexity of the indicator is higher than pre-set complexity” This limitation is pre and post-solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 5 recites “wherein before determining, from the indicator pre-computation data set, indicator intermediate data corresponding to the target computation parameter and the target feature information, the method further comprises: determining that the indicator pre-computation data set corresponding to the target feature information exists” This limitation is pre and post-solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 depends on claim 5 and includes all the limitations of claim 5. Claim 6 recites “wherein the determining that the indicator pre-computation data set corresponding to the target feature information exists comprises: determining whether the target feature information satisfies a pre-computation condition; in cases where the target feature information satisfies the pre-computation conditions, determine that the indicator pre-computation data set exists” This limitation is pre and post-solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 7 recites “wherein the target operation parameter further comprises an original operation parameter, and before the determining a query result of the target indicator based on the intermediate data of the indicator, the method further comprises: acquiring, from the original indicator data, original operation data corresponding to the original operation parameter, wherein the original operation parameter corresponding to the target feature information; determining a query result of the target indicator based on the indicator intermediate data and the target operation rule, comprising: determining a query result for the target indicator based on the original operation data, the indicator intermediate data and the target operation rule” This limitation is pre and post-solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 11 recites “wherein the indicator query instruction may be triggered after a user inputs indicator-related information to be queried in the query interface, or generated based on selecting the indicator-related information to be queried in a pull-down menu option in the query interface” This limitation is pre and post-solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 depends on claim 11 and includes all the limitations of claim 11. Claim 12 recites “wherein the indicator-related information is the indicator name and the target feature information” This limitation is pre and post-solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 depends on claim 4 and includes all the limitations of claim 4. Claim 13 recites “wherein the indicator pre-computation identifier is pre-set for the indicator and is used for indicating a query identifier of the indicator which needs to be pre-computed” This limitation is pre and post-solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14 depends on claim 4 and includes all the limitations of claim 4. Claim 14 recites “wherein the appearance frequency of the indicator is obtained by counting the number of times that the indicator appears in the query every day” This limitation is pre and post-solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 15 depends on claim 4 and includes all the limitations of claim 4. Claim 15 recites “wherein the computation complexity of the indicator comprises computing the number of times that the indicator needs to be computed” This limitation is pre and post-solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9-10 as similar to claim 1. The claims are rejected based on the same reasons.
Claim 16-21 are similar to claims 2-7. The claims are rejected based on the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAU HAI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5894. The examiner can normally be reached 1st biwk: Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM-5:00 PM; 2nd biwk: Mon-Thurs: 7:00 am-5:00pm, Fri: 7:00 am - 4:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
HAU HAI. HOANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/HAU H HOANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154