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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 45, “closet” is
understood to refer to “closest”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12367094 (‘094)in view of art as applied below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Referring to claims 1, 2, see claim 1 of ‘094.
Referring to claim 3, see claims 4 of ‘094. Although claim 4 of ‘094 does not specifically claim that the number selected is where the silhouette coefficient is closest to 1, this is known in the art. In a related field of computing, an example of this is shown by “Silhouette (clustering)” by Wikipedia, from page 1, “Silhouette refers to a method of interpretation and validation of consistency within clusters of data. The technique provides a succinct graphical representation of how well each object has been classified.[1] The silhouette value is a measure of how similar an object is to its own cluster (cohesion) compared to other clusters (separation). The silhouette ranges from −1 to +1, where a high value indicates that the object is well matched to its own cluster and poorly matched to neighboring clusters. If most objects have a high value, then the clustering configuration is appropriate. If many points have a low or negative value, then the clustering configuration may have too many or too few clusters.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select for a coefficient closet to 1 because, as shown by Wikipedia, “The silhouette ranges from −1 to +1, where a high value indicates that the object is well matched to its own cluster and poorly matched to neighboring clusters. If most objects have a high value, then the clustering configuration is appropriate.”
Referring to claim 4, although claim 1 of ‘094 does not specifically claim continuously collecting the plurality of ITSM incident reports using automated monitoring and logging tools from across an enterprise information technology (IT) system, the enterprise IT system including a plurality of hardware devices and a plurality of software applications connected to a network, collecting data for hardware and software of an environment is known in the art. In a related field of computing, an example of this is shown by US6883120 to Banga, from the abstract, “A method and system for computer assisted automatic error detection and diagnosis of file servers. Software modules periodically and continuously review monitoring statistics gathered by the file server regarding its operation. The monitoring statistics are processed by a pattern matching system and a rule-based inference system. Software modules augment known network protocols, by manipulating parameters of lower-level protocols using different higher-level protocols. Using the higher-level protocols, software modules determine if the selected parameters for the lower-level protocols are correct. Software modules track hardware and software configuration changes to the file server, and relate changes in known monitoring statistics to timing of those hardware and software configuration changes.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor hardware and software across such an enterprise because, as disclosed by Banga from the field of invention, this aids in “assisted automatic error detection and diagnosis”.
Referring to claim 5, see claims 1, 2, 3 of ‘094.
Referring to claim 6, see claim 1 of ‘094.
Referring to claims 8-13, 15-20, see rejection of claims 1-6 above.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, if no statutory category rejection was given above, then the claims have been determined to have a statutory category.
At step 2a, prong one, referring to claims 1, 8, and 15, the claims recite abstract limitations of inputting, generating, computing, splitting, outputting, and generating, albeit through the additional use of a generic computer (including the generic “machine” of “unsupervised machine learning”). Claim 1 recited, “A computer-implemented method for identifying problems from information technology service management (ITSM) incident reports based on textual data contained in the ITSM incident reports, the method comprising: inputting a plurality of vectors and parameters, including an automatically determined base cluster number, to an unsupervised machine learning clustering algorithm, the plurality of vectors representing textual data from a plurality of ITSM incident reports; generating and outputting a base group of clusters using the unsupervised machine learning clustering algorithm; computing a cluster quality score for each of the base group of clusters, the cluster quality score based on a ratio of a cluster inertia value to a number of per cluster data points; recursively splitting, using a processing unit, each cluster from the base group of clusters with the cluster quality score above a threshold value until the cluster quality score for each cluster is below the threshold value; outputting a final group of clusters, wherein each cluster from the final group of clusters represents ITSM incident reports related to a same problem; and automatically generating a multi-word label for each cluster from the final group of clusters using terms from an incident report closest to a centroid of each cluster for the multi-word label.” Claims 8 and 15 are similar.
The limitations of inputting, generating, computing, splitting, outputting, and generating, as crafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, possibly with the aid pen and paper. For example, these steps perform steps of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2a, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim additionally recites a generic computer.
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the mental processes a person may use to perform, using the computer components as a tool.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2b, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a generic computer amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
With respect to the generic computer, the courts have found limitations directed to generic computers, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d), for example TLI Communications, Flook, Alice Corp, and Versata.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Further referring to claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, and 16-17, 19-21, these dependent claims merely perform additional steps of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
Further referring to claims 4, 11, 18, the claims additionally recites continuously collecting the plurality of ITSM incident reports using automated monitoring and logging tools from across an enterprise information technology (IT) system, the enterprise IT system including a plurality of hardware devices and a plurality of software applications connected to a network. This does not integrate into practical application. When viewed in combination, this additional element does no more than provide a source of data for which the generic computer can perform its operations.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2b, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a tools to monitoring hardware and software in a network amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
With respect to the monitor, see for example US 20230035437 A1 paragraph 15-16, US 20040122940 A1 paragraph 5, US 20020188643 A1 paragraph 74, US 20210227351 A1 paragraph 2-3, US 20180129503 A1 paragraph 68.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See notice of references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL L CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-3656. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays 8 am to 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.
/GABRIEL CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights