DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on September 17, 2025 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-13 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.
Claims 1, 12, and 13, “specify … a part” is unclear. Examiner interprets “specify … a part” as “specify … a delay”
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1, 12, and 13 recite an abstract idea of “determining whether or not a delay occurs for each of the queries based on the response time currently acquired and the response time acquired in a past time” (mathematical concept), “specifying, as an output for output on a display, a part where
delay occurs in at least one of the one or more microservices based on the
determination of whether or not the delay occurs for each of the queries” (mental process), “determining whether or not the delay occurs for each of the queries based on the response time currently acquired and a threshold value” (evaluation, mental process), “determining the threshold value based on the response time acquired in the
past time and weighting of the query” (evaluation, mental process).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (determination circuitry) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)). “Acquiring, for each of a plurality of queries, a response time of one or more microservices using the query for a data model in which the plurality of queries is previously associated” is directed to an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(A)).
“Acquiring, for each of a plurality of queries, a response time of one or more microservices using the query for a data model in which the plurality of queries is previously associated” (acquiring response time from a database) is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity known in the industry, have been found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the claimed judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 3-5, 7, 9, and 10 are directed to conventional insignificant extra solution activities.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 11 are directed to an abstract idea/data.
Accordingly, claims 1 and its dependent claims 2-11 and claims 12 and 13 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iikura et al. (US 2021/0390005) in view of Fani et al. (US 2021/0217093).
Regarding claim 12, Iikura et al. discloses a delay estimation apparatus and method/system (100, Fig. 1), comprising:
acquiring, for each of a plurality of queries (response times measured by MS-B, paragraph 0089, lines 6-8; Fig. 9), a response time of one or more microservices (response times of MC-C, paragraph 0089, lines 4-5) using the query for a data model (measured response times) in which the plurality of queries are previously associated (measured response times of MS-C are measured by MS-B, paragraph 0089, lines 6-8); and
determining whether or not a delay occurs (response time exceeds allowable value, paragraph 0086, lines 3-4) for each of the queries based on the response time currently acquired (response time of microservice, paragraph 0086, lines 1-3) and the response time acquired in a past time (allowable value of response time, paragraph 0086, line 3); and
specifying, as an output for output on a display (output can be a display, paragraph 0149, lines 1-7), a part where delay occurs in at least one of the one or more
microservices (delay in the response time of the microservice, paragraph 0087, lines 2-3) based on the determination of whether or not the delay occurs for each of the
queries (delay of call destination is detected, paragraph 0087, lines 6-8).
Iikura et al. does not discloses the data model is created by performing machine
learning on a name of each of the plurality of queries.
Fani et al. discloses a data model is created by performing machine learning on a name of each of the plurality of queries (machine learning algorithm uses operational data to create data model, paragraph 0080, lines 1-9) for generating answers to complex queries (paragraph 0080, lines 7-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Iikura et al. with a data model created by
performing machine learning as disclosed by Fani et al. the purpose of generating answers to complex queries.
Prior Art Note
Claims 1-11 and 13 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein a delay estimation apparatus comprising the threshold value is determined based on weighting of the query (claim 1) or the plurality of queries are previously associated in a hierarchy structure in the data model (claim 13) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on September 17, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) has been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) under 35 USC 112(a) have been withdrawn.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicants argue “the independent claims are amended to recite specifying, as an output (on or for output on a display), a part where delay occurs in at least one of the one or more microservices based on the determination of whether or not the delay occurs for each of the queries, in an effort to make more clear that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea and, in any event, amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea, because the claimed invention is nor preclusive and can be practically applied, for instance, to specify a part and where the delay occurs for the purpose of repairing the microservice and stopping at least one microservice associated with the delay to prevent further occurrence of defect caused by the delay (e.g., paras. [0004], [0007], [0038], (00391, [0043], [0045], [0048], Claims 7, 9).”
Examiner’s position is that the amendment above is about determining (specifying) a part where delay occurs in at least one of the one or more microservices. The amendment is making an evaluation; thus, it involves a mental process. Accordingly, it is directed to an abstract idea. Furthermore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, e.g., the specified part is not used in a meaningful way (in response to the specifying, see interview summary) (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 102/103 of claims 1-11 and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 102/103 of claims 1-11 and 13 have been withdrawn.
However, regarding claim 12, Examiner’s position is that claim 12 has been amended to include the limitation of amended claim 11, which is different from prior claim 11. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fani et al. (US 2021/0217093). As discussed above, Fani et al. discloses a data model is created by performing machine learning on a name of each of the plurality of queries (machine learning algorithm uses operational data to create data model, paragraph 0080, lines 1-9) for generating answers to complex queries (paragraph 0080, lines 7-9).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 October 4, 2025