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 .
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For claims 1 and 16-17:
Step 2A prong 1: the claims are considered an exception because they recite concepts that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or using pen and paper, and they do not necessarily require generic or any computer components to be completed. The claims recite computer components (system computer, processor, storage medium) that execute the operations/steps performed (acquire data, detect anomaly), however that does not change the fact that the operations/steps can still be performed in the mind only, and that the computer components are not necessary.
Step 2A prong 2: (i)The recited additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the generic elements recited specified above do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea as they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea utilizing a computer; (ii) also, the object of theoperations in the claims, is of user actions and data, which is not necessarily a machine, but rather human activity. No system is positively claimed; (iii) the operations, objects, and data, are not sufficiently complex and/or laborious that would mandate the use of a computing components. The invention merely amounts to finding errors in questions made by humans related to a service by humans.
Step 2B: beyond, the unnecessary computer components, there are no activities or components claimed that could be analyzed using the Berkheimer emo, or that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities
For claims 2-15, the claim further specifies possible topics of conversation in a related manner (access situation data, various types of servers, keyboard inputs, messages, chats, sounds in a call center, dictionary/database entries, a configuration, number of questions/inquiries, a state and pieces thereof, which are relevant, campaign information, and distribution content), i.e. not positively claimed. These additions does not change the fact the operations can be performed in the mind only (Step 2A prong 1), that the operations are not sufficiently complex (Step 2A prong 2), and that the additions are not operations that can be analyzed according to the Berkheimer Memo (Step 2B).
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.
Claim 3-4, 8-10, and 12 are 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.
For claim 3, the terms “the access situation” is indefinite because multiple access situations were declare earlier and so it is unclear to which the claim refers to. It is suggested the claim be amended to “[[the]] each access situation”.
For claim 4, the terms “the inquiry pages” lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. It is suggested the first instance be amended to “[[the]] inquiry pages”.
For claims 8-10, the term “the services” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. It is suggested the first instance be amended to “each of a plurality of [[the]] services”.
For claims 9-10, the term “the number of inquiries” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. It is suggested the first instance be amended to “[[the]] a number of inquiries”.
For claim 12, the term “the relevance” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. It is suggested the claim be amended to “[[the]] a relevanc”.
Dependent claims inherit rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-15 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 all 35 USC § 112 and 35 USC § 101 rejections are overcome.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dawes (US 2018/0198688 A1).
For claim 1, Dawes teaches an anomaly detection system, comprising at least one processor configured to: acquire inquiry data relating to an inquiry made by each of a plurality of users who use a service; and detect an anomaly relating to the service based on the inquiry data (see [0833-0835]: UI means coming from users; view request as said inquiry; server provides services; view failure as anomaly).
For claims 16 and 17, the claims recite essentially similar limitations as claim 1. Claim 16 is a method and claim 17 is a medium.
For claim 2, Dawes teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above and further teaches the at least one processor is configured to acquire, as the inquiry data, access situation data relating to an access situation of each of the plurality of users to an inquiry page of the service, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to detect the anomaly based on the access situation data (see [0227]: web page has situation data and is in response to an inquiry)
For claim 3, Dawes teaches the limitations of claim 2 for the reasons above and further teaches the at least one processor is configured to acquire, as the inquiry data, access situation data relating to an access situation of each of the plurality of users to an inquiry page of the service, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to detect the anomaly based on the access situation data (see [0227]: web page has situation data and is in response to an inquiry)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAIR LEIBOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-3796. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 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 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.
/YAIR LEIBOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights