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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 19, 20 recite “means for“ performing various functions listed throughout the claim. Each of the means recited will be treated to be any of the means specified in the paragraph [0064] of the specification relevant to perform the recited functions.
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 9, 18 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the set of entities" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of the examination, "the set of entities" will be treated as "the set of related entities".
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the set of entities" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of the examination, "the set of entities" will be treated as "the set of related entities".
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 abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) 1, 10 and 19 recite(s):
receive/receiving a set of related entities…
receive/receiving at least one parameter…
determine/determining a correlation of related parameters;
generate/generating a relevant score…
construct/constructing a prompt…
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes.
Claims 1 and 19 are a machine.
Claim 10 is a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s)
The ‘determine/determining' limitation in #3 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, "determining" in the context of the claim encompasses a person statistically calculating the relationship between the obtained parameters.
The 'generate/generating' limitation in #4 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, "generating" in the context of the claim encompasses a person calculating a confidence level/score on each of the event based on received data.
The 'construct/constructing' limitation in #5 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, "constructing" in the context of the claim encompasses a person writing instructions to be used by the large language model.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘receive/receiving' limitation in #1, #2 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "receive/receiving" in the context of the claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, one or more of the claims recite the following additional elements:
An apparatus (claims 1 and 19)
a processor / a memory (claim 1)
a large language model (claims 1, 5, 10, 14 and 19)
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components, application/software performing instructions) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components (hardware and/or software) cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-13, 15-18, 20 merely further describe the steps of claim 1
.
Claims 5, 14 merely further recite performing 5 Whys with large language model. However, the claim is recited without any further details to be considered as anything more than a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
For at least the reasoning provided above, claims 1-20 are patent ineligible.
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, 6, 7, 9, 10, 15, 16, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (PG Pub. 2024/0,420,418 A1) [hereafter Wu].
As per claim 1, Wu teaches:
An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and (Wu, Fig. 9, ¶ [0083], processor)
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: (Wu, Fig. 9, ¶ [0083], instructions stored in memory executed by the processor)
receive a set of related entities associated by a topology; (Wu, ¶ [0062], ¶ [078], ¶ [0087], a graph describing the relationships of the features within the map, road network topology, ¶ [0089])
receive at least one parameter associated with the set of related entities; (Wu, ¶ [0085], receiving various events and represented using parameters of curves, ¶ [0428])
determine a correlation of related parameters; (Wu, ¶ [0270], relative weight of each detection compared to other detections; subset of parameters that correlates with various aspects of the vehicle)
generate a relevant score for each event; and (Wu, ¶ [0206], confidence score, ¶ [0270], ¶ 0314])
construct a prompt configured for a large language model (Wu, ¶ [0079], ¶ [0105], generate one or more prompts for LLM)
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Wu further teaches:
wherein the at least one memory and the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus at least to: weigh at least one parameter according to time from a given point in time (Wu, ¶ [0055], comparing the inferences for each time point, ¶ [0061], a specific point in time, ¶ [0066], ¶ [0120], weight parameters, ¶ [0135], ¶ [0270])
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Wu further teaches:
wherein the at least one parameter comprises one or more of: at least one metric; at least one event; at least one log; or at least one trace (Wu, ¶ [0118], parameters, ¶ [0257], various events, ¶ [0334], activity log)
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Wu further teaches:
format the set of entities into a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format; (Wu, ¶ [0081], JSON)
format the topology into a predetermined format; and (Wu, ¶ [0036], outputting a textual description of an environment in a structured textual format, ¶ [0081], JSON is a structured format)
sort at least one correlated event by time (Wu, ¶ [0061], a semantic understanding of an environment at a specific point in time, ¶ [0066])
Claims 10, 15, 16, 18 are method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 1, 6, 7, 9 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons set forth in connection of the rejections of the claims 1, 6, 7, 9 above.
Claim 19 is an apparatus claim reciting same limitations to the claim 1 except for the hardware involving the apparatus and is rejected for the same reasons set forth in connection of the rejection of the claim 1 above.
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.
Claim(s) 2-5, 8, 11-14, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, and further in view of Khamis et al. (PG Pub. 2025/0,363,836 A1) [Khamis].
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated:
Wu does not teach:
perform a 5 Whys analysis comprising a question, an answer, and a confidence score up to a predetermined number of times
However, Khamis in an analogous art teaches:
perform a 5 Whys analysis comprising a question, an answer, and a confidence score up to a predetermined number of times (Khamis, ¶ [0073], 5-Whys interactive analysis for LLM, ¶ [0084], confidence score, ¶ [0101])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate teachings of Khamis into the method of Wu to provide a method to perform a 5 Whys analysis comprising a question, an answer, and a confidence score up to a predetermined number of times. The modification would be obvious because it allows the LLM to ask a series of questions in order to build a knowledge/causal graph or otherwise build a causation information (Khamis, ¶ [0073]).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated:
Wu does not teach:
wherein the 5 Whys analysis comprises a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) string
However, Khamis in an analogous art teaches:
perform a 5 Whys analysis (Khamis, ¶ [0073], 5-Whys interactive analysis for LLM)
In addition, Wu teaches:
using formats such as JSON with an LLM (Wu, ¶ [0081])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate combined teachings of Wu and Khamis into the method of Wu to provide a method wherein the 5 Whys analysis comprises a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) string. The modification would be obvious because generic formats such as JSON can provide greater compatibility.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated and Wu further teaches:
wherein the JSON string is a formatted topology (Wu, ¶ [0081], JSON is formatted string)
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and Khamis further teaches:
wherein the 5 Whys analysis is performed with a large language model (Khamis, ¶ [0073], 5-Whys used by the LLM)
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated:
Wu does not teach:
wherein the determining is based upon at least one of: temporal-event distribution score; density score; or temporal score
However, Khamis in an analogous art teaches:
wherein the determining is based upon at least one of: temporal-event distribution score; density score; or temporal score (Khamis, ¶ [0084], a significance score for each anomalous event, ¶ [0081], anomalous events are correlated with their temporal aspects, ¶ [0085])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate teachings of Khamis into the method of Wu to provide a method wherein the determining is based upon at least one of: temporal-event distribution score; density score; or temporal score. The modification would be obvious because contextual information such as temporal information allows system to characterize or categorize anomalous events or otherwise determine whether an anomalous event is benign or is reflective of an underlying problem (Khamis, ¶ [0071]).
Claims 11-14, 17 are method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 2-5, 8 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons set forth in connection of the rejections of the claims 2-5, 8 above.
Claim 20 is an apparatus claim reciting same limitations of the claim 2 except for the hardware involving the apparatus and is rejected for the same reasons set forth in connection of the rejection of the claim 2 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PG Pub. 2025/0,348,666 A1 discloses method for using a generative machine learning (ML) model to generate a natural language summary of an abnormal incident. The natural language summary includes a symptom-resource pairing corresponding to the alert and is based on the alert data and on a topology of keywords comprised by the alert.
PG Pub. 2025/0,272,175 A1 discloses techniques for detecting root cause failures in a computing environment using a root cause detector that may be implemented with a classifier model, a large language model, a rule-based heuristics identifying spurious alert patterns, or combinations of these techniques.
PG Pub. 2025/0,245,091 A1 discloses a method for accessing event records to extract data values, generating an incident data record based on the extracted values of the event records and generating a prompt based on the incident data record to be executed by a large language model.
PG Pub. 2025/0,077,851 A1 discloses techniques to determine an event graph of a causal chain of events representing a situation within a network, the event graph including event text characterizing at least one event of the causal chain of events. The event graph may then be processed using a large language model that includes at least one topological context adapter.
See PTO-892 for other references not listed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAE M KO whose telephone number is (571)270-3886. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm.
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.
/CHAE M KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights