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
Claim(s) 1-8 has/have been examined.Claim(s) 1-8 have been rejected.
Specification
The specification filed May 8, 2025 is objected to because the title is not descriptive of the claimed invention.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Below is an evaluation using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1 is satisfied because method steps are processes.
At step 2a prong 1, an abstract idea is recited: steps of the claim could be performed as a mental process. These steps include calculating information on a difference on the basis of operation definition information including preset operation specifications of an apparatus or a system and operation data; and identify the apparatus or the system which performs an operation different from the same kind of apparatus or the same kind of systems on the basis of the information on the difference.
At step 2a prong 2, the claim recites additional elements but these elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Recited details about the nature of the information calculated or information used are not additional elements but instead describe steps of the mental process. The claim recites use of an inspection device comprising memory and processing circuitry. These elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they only apply the mental process to a generic computer system.
At step 2b, the claim recites additional elements but these elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites use of an inspection device comprising memory and processing circuitry. These elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are conventional computing devices which are only generally linked to the abstract idea without meaningfully limiting the mental process.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 6. These claims recite additional limitations of the mental process but their inclusion does not push the mental process beyond what can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claims do not recite additional elements which must be evaluated in step 2a prong 2 or step 2b.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, these claims recite use of an external storage device. The use of an external storage device does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (step 2a prong 2) because it only apply the mental process to a generic computer system. The additional element also do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (step 2b) because it is a conventional computing device which are only generally linked to the abstract idea without meaningfully limiting the mental process.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, these claims recite limitations found in claim 1 and are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/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.
Note that dependent claims not specifically addressed below inherit the deficiency of the parent claim and do not remedy the issue.
Claim 1 line 4 recites the limitation “the basis of operation”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1 line 7 recites the limitation “the apparatus or the system which performs an operation”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim1 line 9 recites the limitation “the basis of the information on the difference”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2 lines 2-3 recite the limitation “the operation definition information in which configuration information”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2 lines 2-6 recite limitations in combination which are unclear. These limitations should be rephrased for grammar. The claim should recite a list of clear limitations.
Claim 2 line 5 recites the limitation “the operation data that is information on an actual operation”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5 lines 3-4 recite “the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire the information on the difference”. Parent claim 1 recites “calculate information on a difference”. It is unclear how this information can be both calculated by the device and acquired by the device from an external storage.
Claim 6 line 5 recites the limitation “the calculation unit”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis. Claim 7 line 3 recites the limitation “the basis of operation”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 7 line 6 recites the limitation “the apparatus or the system which performs an operation”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 7 lines 7-8 recite the limitation “the basis of the information on the difference”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 8 line 3 recites the limitation “the basis of operation”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 8 lines 7-8 recite the limitation “the basis of the information on the difference”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 8 lines 8-9 recite the limitation “the basis of the information”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis.
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 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (EP 2523115).
Regarding claim 1, Hasegawa discloses an inspection device comprising:
a memory (Figure 1, the device includes storage and accumulation units, in addition to various controllers which generally require temporary data storage to operate); and
processing circuitry (Figure 1, server operation management apparatus) configured to:
calculate information on a difference on the basis of operation definition information including preset operation specifications of an apparatus or a system and operation data (paragraph 22, determine whether the measured data of each metric is normal or abnormal based on comparison with model data; the model data is based on multiple performance metrics for each server and based on normal performance information for each server; a failure detection unit determines whether or not a difference satisfies a predetermined error range); and
identify the apparatus or the system which performs an operation differently from the same kind of apparatuses or the same kind of systems on the basis of the information on the difference (paragraphs 14 and 22, when analyzing abnormal metrics, exclude abnormal items that are common to all servers in the group being monitored; this serves to isolate abnormal metrics that are different than metrics of the same kind of device).
Hasegawa does not expressly disclose that the identified apparatus or system performs a different operation.
Hasegawa teaches determining that a server has different performance metrics (paragraphs 21 and 22). The detection of differing metrics, particularly performance metrics such as CPU usage or memory usage (paragraph 21), would indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the affected device is performing operations which differ from devices that have less CPU usage or memory usage.
Regarding claim 2, Hasegawa discloses the inspection device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry
compares the operation definition information in which configuration information including components with respect to a configuration of the apparatus or the system is associated with operation specifications based on the components with the operation data that is information on an actual operation of the apparatus or the system (paragraphs 29 and 38, the servers are associated with different tiers based on their configuration as different types of servers (i.e. web server or application server) and having differing software components), and
calculates, as the information on the difference, information on presence/absence of a difference between the operation specifications and the operation data and information on content of a difference between the operation specifications and the operation data (paragraph 27, determine that a difference satisfies a condition of a predetermined error range).
Regarding claim 3, Hasegawa discloses the inspection device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry identifies a component that causes the difference using previously acquired information on differences in the same kind of apparatuses or the same kind of systems as the apparatus or the system (paragraph 3, a cause of abnormality within a server may be due to memory capacity, CPU load, or network load; these metrics are closely associated with components).
Regarding claim 4, Hasegawa discloses the inspection device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire the operation definition information from a predetermined storage device (paragraph 27, the correlation model storage unit stores the models; Figure 1 shows the correlation model storage unit being external to the failure detection unit).
Hasegawa does not expressly disclose the system wherein the storage device is external.
The examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art to maintain and utilize a remote data backup.Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the server monitoring system disclosed by Hasegawa such that a remote data backup of operational data is stored and retrieved, as is known in the art. This modification would have been obvious because, as would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art, a local event or failure may cause locally stored data to be corrupted and use of a remote backup would allow the system to recover data after such a failure and continue operating.
Regarding claim 5, Hasegawa discloses the inspection device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire the information on the difference from a predetermined storage device (Figure 1, performance information accumulation unit stores data which is utilized by the failure detection unit).
Hasegawa does not expressly disclose the system wherein the storage device is external.
The examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art to maintain and utilize a remote data backup.Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the server monitoring system disclosed by Hasegawa such that a remote data backup of operational data is stored and retrieved, as is known in the art. This modification would have been obvious because, as would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art, a local event or failure may cause locally stored data to be corrupted and use of a remote backup would allow the system to recover data after such a failure and continue operating.
Regarding claim 6, Hasegawa discloses the inspection device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to update the operation definition information when the information on the difference calculated by the calculation unit and the information on differences in the same kind of apparatuses or the same kind of systems as the apparatus or the system satisfy predetermined conditions (paragraph 27, the model data is generated based on a series of performance metrics for each server, it is therefore updated as more metrics are generated, based on the metrics not being abnormal and being for the same tier of server).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, these claims recite limitations found in claim 1 and are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kwasnick teaches determining that conditions in a device are outside a range or threshold and storing a predetermined specification range associated with the condition. Carter teachers performing equipment testing during manufacturing by comparing measured responses with a maximum range of responses from a customer specification or international standard.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH SCHELL whose telephone number is (571) 272-8186. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9AM-5:00PM (Pacific Time).
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. Please note that all agendas or related documents that Applicant would like reviewed should be sent at least one full business day (i.e. 24 hours not including weekends or holidays) before the interview.
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. The fax phone number for the examiner is 571-273-8186. The examiner may be e-mailed at joseph.schell@uspto.gov though communications via e-mail are not permitted without a written authorization form (see MPEP 502.03).
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.
JS/JOSEPH O SCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights