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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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, distributed network, non-transitory storage device/medium, processing device, instructions/application execution, applications, error logs, computer program product, and program code”) that execute the operations/steps performed, 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. The operations of “determining, comparing, and receiving”, and fall under evaluation and judgement and observation. The claims can be performed by observing, a computer system, and its outputs, but not necessarily interacting with it, given the broadest and simplest interpretations of the limitations of determining, comparing, and receiving being performed in the mind.
Step 2A prong 2: The recited additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because (i) the generic elements recited 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 the observing and evaluating in the claims, is a system or an output of such, possibly in the form of a printout or view screen; (iii)The system is very generic in the manner it is claimed, and as such the claim is not practical, but rather preemptive of all systems and applications; (iv) additional limitations are recited that explain what is being observed, however this does not change the fact that it is still the object of what is being observed; (v) the objects of the determining and evaluating operations are not sufficiently complex and/or laborious that would mandate the use of a computing components.
Step 2B: the claim recites generic components and activities that are well-understood, routine, conventional. Officially note that these components and activities are as such. Examples are generic computers and networks, error logs, remediation of failures, comparing patterns to actual output determine failures, and verifying success of remediations.
For dependent claims, the claims further specify monitoring, remediation execution, displaying on GUI, further interaction with computer, and updating statuses. Officially note that these are generic components and activities that are well-understood, routine, conventional (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 1-20 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 claims 1, 8, and 15, the term “the one or more known indicator patterns” is indefinite because multiple “one or more known indicator patterns” were declared earlier and so it is unclear to which the claim refers to. It is suggested independent claims be amended to “compare the one or more performance indicators to the one or more known indicator patterns, wherein”.
For claims 2, 9, and 16, the term “the operations” lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claims. It is suggested the claims be amended to “[[the]] operations”
Dependent claims inherit rejections.
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 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xin (US 2019/0086911 A1).
For claim 1, Xin teaches a system for determining causes of network anomalies across a distributed network (see abstract, paragraph [0017], [0037]), the system comprising: at least one non-transitory storage device containing instructions; and at least one processing device coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device, wherein the instructions are configured to cause the at least one processing device, upon execution of the instructions, to: determine one or more known indicator patterns from one or more error logs for one or more applications on a network (see [0047], [0049]: view event history data log associated with failure including error code paternsas said error log; view repeat failure patterns and modes as said known indicator patterns), wherein each of the one or more known indicator patterns comprises known performance indicators from one or more error logs (failure is a performance issue); receive one or more performance indicators during an execution of an application on the network; compare the one or more performance indicators to one or more known indicator patterns (see [0049] view detect changes from nominal as said comparing; view times close to failure conditions indicates performance), wherein each of the one or more known indicator patterns has an operating designation, wherein the operating designation comprises an indication of a malfeasant operating status or a regular operating status (see locations pointed to above: view failure as said malfeasant); determine at least one of the one or more performance indicators that is malfeasant based on the comparison of the one or more performance indicators to one or more known indicator patterns (see locations pointed to above, [0021], [0043]: view failure detected/suspected as said); determine a malfeasant component of the network based on the one or more performance indicators that is malfeasant, wherein the malfeasant component of the network is associated with one of the at least one of the one or more performance indicators that is malfeasant (see [0002],, [0010]); determine a remediation action to be executed in response to the comparison of the one or more performance indicators to one or more known indicator patterns, wherein the remediation action is based on the malfeasant component of the application (see [0011], [0045], [0062]); receive one or more updated performance indicators after an execution of the remediation action; and determine a result of the remediation action based on the one or more updated performance indicators (see [0011], [0045], [0062]: view effectiveness and repeated repairs as said).
For claim 2, Xin teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above and further teaches the instructions are further configured to cause the at least one processing device, upon execution of the instructions, to identify one or more performance indicators to monitor during the operations of the application on the network (see abstract, [0002], [0046]).
For claims 8-9, the claims recite essentially similar limitations as claims 1-2 respectively. Claims 8-9 are a computer program product.
For claims 15-16, the claims recite essentially similar limitations as claims 1-2 respectively. Claims 15-16 are a method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin (US 2019/0086911 A1), and further in view of Ansari (US 2004/0153823 A1).
For claim 3,
Xin teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above.
Xin does not explicitly teach “the instructions are further configured to cause the at least one processing device, upon execution of the instructions, to cause an execution of the remediation action”.
However, Ansari teaches the instructions are further configured to cause the at least one processing device, upon execution of the instructions, to cause an execution of the remediation action” (see abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xin to include “cause … remediation action”, as taught by Ansari, because each one of Xin and Ansari teach remedial actions in networks therefore they are analogous arts and because many remediations are software patches which are executable (see abstract).
For claim 4,
Xin teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above.
Xin does not explicitly teach “the instructions are further configured to cause the at least one processing device, upon execution of the instructions, to cause a rendering of the remediation action on a graphical user interface of an end-point device associated with the application”.
However, Ansari teaches the instructions are further configured to cause the at least one processing device, upon execution of the instructions, to cause a rendering of the remediation action on a graphical user interface of an end-point device associated with the application” (see [0011], [0025])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xin to include “cause … application”, as taught by Ansari, because of the motivational reasons specified in claim 3).
For claim 5,
Xin teaches the limitations of claim 4 for the reasons above.
Xin further teaches cause the at least one processing device, upon execution of the instructions, to receive an action input from the end-point device in response to the rendering of the remediation action on a graphical user interface (see [0025]: further alternatives).
For claim 6,
Xin teaches the limitations of claim 5 for the reasons above.
Xin further teaches cause the at least one processing device, upon execution of the instructions, to update the remediation action based on the action input (see [0025]: reverting).
For claim 7,
Xin teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above.
The claim further recites limitations from the combination of claims 4 to 6, so see rejections above.
For claims 10-14,
The claims recite essentially similar limitations as claims 3-7 respectively. Claims 10-14 are a computer program product.
For claim 17,
Xin teaches the limitations of claim 15 for the reasons above.
The claim further recites limitations as claim 3.
For claim 18,
Xin teaches the limitations of claim 15 for the reasons above.
The claim further recites limitations from the combination of claims 4 and 5.
For claim 19,
Xin teaches the limitations of claim 18 for the reasons above.
The claim further recites limitations as claim 6.
For claim 20,
Xin teaches the limitations of claim 15 for the reasons above.
The claim further recites limitations as claim 7.
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