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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12405990. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims are not obvious over the claims in the previously issued patent.
The table below shows how the claims in the instant application are anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 12405990:
Patent 12405990
Instant Application
1. A computer-implemented method for finding historically similar incidents in a system, the method comprising:
receiving a data object indicating an occurrence of a current incident associated with a configurable item, the data object including current incident metadata, the current incident metadata including a configurable item identifier (ID), a configurable item name, and a description of the current incident;
receiving a plurality of historical data objects corresponding to a plurality of previous incidents, each of the plurality of historical data objects indicating an occurrence of a previous incident and including previous incident metadata, the previous incident metadata including a configurable item ID, a configurable item name, and a description of the previous incident;
determining one or more historical data objects, of the plurality of historical data objects, that are similar to the data object based on a comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata, wherein the one or more historical data objects include a plurality of lists of historical data object, each list corresponding to a particular metadata association, wherein each list is determined by a particular current incident metadata's similarity to the corresponding metadata of the historical incident metadata;
generating a score for each of the one or more historical data objects based on the comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata;
and outputting the one or more historical data objects that are similar to the data object to a user via a graphical user interface (GUI).
1. A computer-implemented method for finding historically similar incidents in a system, the method comprising:
determining one or more historical data objects, of a plurality of historical data objects indicating an occurrence of a previous incident and including previous incident metadata, is similar to a data object indicating an occurrence of a current incident associated with a configurable item and including current incident metadata, based on a comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata, wherein the one or more historical data objects include a plurality of lists of historical data object, each list corresponding to a particular metadata association, wherein each list is determined by a particular current incident metadata's similarity to the corresponding metadata of the previous incident metadata;
generating a score for each of the one or more historical data objects based on the comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata;
and outputting the one or more historical data objects that are similar to the data object to a user via a graphical user interface (GUI).
2. The computer-implement method of claim 1, wherein determining the one or more historical data objects further comprises applying a natural language processing algorithm to the data object and the plurality of historical data objects.
2. The computer-implement method of claim 1, wherein determining the one or more historical data objects further comprises applying a natural language processing algorithm to the data object and the plurality of historical data objects.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of historical data objects are received during a pre-determined time period.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of historical data objects are received during a pre-determined time period.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: extracting a knowledge based (KB) article and a topic from each of the descriptions of the current and previous incidents using a natural language processing module.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: extracting a knowledge based (KB) article and a topic from each of a descriptions of the current and previous incidents using a natural language processing module.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the natural language processing module utilizes a linear discriminant analysis algorithm or Gibbs sampling dirichlet mixture model algorithm to extract the topic.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the natural language processing module utilizes a linear discriminant analysis algorithm or Gibbs sampling dirichlet mixture model algorithm to extract the topic.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein determining one or more historical data objects, of the plurality of historical data objects, that are similar to the data object based on a comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata comprises: determining a first list of historical data objects based on a similarity between the configurable item ID of the current incident and the configurable item ID of each of the previous incidents; determining a second list of historical data objects based on a similarity between the configurable item name of the current incident and the configurable item name of each of the previous incidents; determining a third list of historical data objects based on a similarity between the topic of the current incident and the topic of each of the previous incidents; and determining a fourth list of historical data objects based on a similarity between the KB article of the current incident and the KB article of each of the previous incidents.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein determining one or more historical data objects, of the plurality of historical data objects, which is similar to the data object based on the comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata comprises: determining a first list of historical data objects based on a similarity between a configurable item ID of the current incident and a configurable item ID of each of the previous incidents; determining a second list of historical data objects based on a similarity between a configurable item name of the current incident and a configurable item name of each of the previous incidents; determining a third list of historical data objects based on a similarity between the topic of the current incident and the topic of each of the previous incidents; and determining a fourth list of historical data objects based on a similarity between the KB article of the current incident and the KB article of each of the previous incidents.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein generating the score for each of the one or more historical data objects further comprises: assigning one or more initial scores to each of the one or more historical data objects based on whether the historical data object was determined to be in the first list, second list, third list, and/or fourth list.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein generating the score for each of the one or more historical data objects further comprises: assigning one or more initial scores to each of the one or more historical data objects based on whether the historical data object was determined to be in the first list, second list, third list, and/or fourth list.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein generating the score for each of the one or more historical data objects further comprises: assigning a weighted average score to each of the one or more historical data objects, wherein the weighted average score is an initial score if the historical data object is only in one of the first list, second list, third list, and fourth list and the weighted average score is based on a combination of initial scores when the historical data object is in two or more of the first list, second list, third list, and fourth list, the weighted average score being the score generated for each of the one or more historical data objects.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein generating the score for each of the one or more historical data objects further comprises: assigning a weighted average score to each of the one or more historical data objects, wherein the weighted average score is an initial score if the historical data object is only in one of the first list, second list, third list, and fourth list and the weighted average score is based on a combination of initial scores when the historical data object is in two or more of the first list, second list, third list, and fourth list, the weighted average score being the score generated for each of the one or more historical data objects.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the one or more historical data objects are included in a ranked list that combines the first list, second list, third list, and fourth list, and orders the one or more historical data objects based on the respective one or more weighted average scores.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the one or more historical data objects are included in a ranked list that combines the first list, second list, third list, and fourth list, and orders the one or more historical data objects based on the respective one or more weighted average scores.
10. A system for finding historically similar incidents in a system, the system comprising:
a memory having processor-readable instructions stored therein; and at least one processor configured to access the memory and execute the processor-readable instructions to perform operations including:
receiving a data object indicating an occurrence of a current incident associated with a configurable item, the data object including current incident metadata, the current incident metadata including a configurable item identifier (ID), a configurable item name, and a description of the current incident;
receiving a plurality of historical data objects corresponding to a plurality of previous incidents, each of the plurality of historical data objects indicating an occurrence of a previous incident and including previous incident metadata, the previous incident metadata including a configurable item ID, a configurable item name, and a description of the previous incident;
determining one or more historical data objects, of the plurality of historical data objects, that are similar to the data object based on a comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata, wherein the one or more historical data objects include a plurality of lists of historical data object, each list corresponding to a particular metadata association, wherein each list is determined by a particular current incident metadata's similarity to the corresponding metadata of the historical incident metadata;
generating a score for each of the one or more historical data objects based on the comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata;
and outputting the one or more historical data objects that are similar to the data object to a user via a graphical user interface (GUI).
10. A system for finding historically similar incidents in a system, the system comprising:
a memory having processor-readable instructions stored therein; and at least one processor configured to access the memory and execute the processor-readable instructions to perform operations including:
determining one or more historical data objects, of a plurality of historical data objects indicating an occurrence of a previous incident and including previous incident metadata, which is similar to a data object indicating an occurrence of a current incident associated with a configurable item and including current incident metadata, based on a comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata, wherein the one or more historical data objects include a plurality of lists of historical data object, each list corresponding to a particular metadata association, wherein each list is determined by a particular current incident metadata's similarity to the corresponding metadata of the previous incident metadata;
generating a score for each of the one or more historical data objects based on the comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata;
and outputting the one or more historical data objects that are similar to the data object to a user via a graphical user interface (GUI).
11. The system of claim 10, wherein determining the one or more historical data objects further comprises applying a natural language processing algorithm to the data object and the plurality of historical data objects.
11. The system of claim 10, wherein determining the one or more historical data objects further comprises applying a natural language processing algorithm to the data object and the plurality of historical data objects.
12. The system of claim 10, wherein the plurality of historical data objects are received during a pre-determined time period.
12. The system of claim 10, wherein the plurality of historical data objects are received during a pre-determined time period.
13. The system of claim 10, further comprising: extracting a knowledge based (KB) article and a topic from each of the descriptions of the current and previous incidents using a natural language processing module.
13. The system of claim 10, further comprising: extracting a knowledge based (KB) article and a topic from each of a descriptions of the current and previous incidents using a natural language processing module.
14. The system of claim 13, wherein the natural language processing module utilizes a linear discriminant analysis algorithm or Gibbs sampling dirichlet mixture model algorithm to extract the topic.
14. The system of claim 13, wherein the natural language processing module utilizes a linear discriminant analysis algorithm or Gibbs sampling dirichlet mixture model algorithm to extract the topic.
15. The system of claim 14, wherein determining one or more historical data objects, of the plurality of historical data objects, that are similar to the data object based on a comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata comprises: determining a first list of historical data objects based on a similarity between the configurable item ID of the current incident and the configurable item ID of each of the previous incidents; determining a second list of historical data objects based on a similarity between the configurable item name of the current incident and the configurable item name of each of the previous incidents; determining a third list of historical data objects based on a similarity between the topic of the current incident and the topic of each of the previous incidents; and determining a fourth list of historical data objects based on a similarity between the KB article of the current incident and the KB article of each of the previous incidents.
15. The system of claim 14, wherein determining one or more historical data objects, of the plurality of historical data objects, that are similar to the data object based on a comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata comprises: determining a first list of historical data objects based on a similarity between a configurable item ID of the current incident and a configurable item ID of each of the previous incidents; determining a second list of historical data objects based on a similarity between a configurable item name of the current incident and a configurable item name of each of the previous incidents; determining a third list of historical data objects based on a similarity between the topic of the current incident and the topic of each of the previous incidents; and determining a fourth list of historical data objects based on a similarity between the KB article of the current incident and the KB article of each of the previous incidents.
16. The system of claim 15, wherein generating the score for each of the one or more historical data objects further comprises: assigning one or more initial scores to each of the one or more historical data objects based on whether the historical data object was determined to be in the first list, second list, third list, and/or fourth list.
16. The system of claim 15, wherein generating the score for each of the one or more historical data objects further comprises: assigning one or more initial scores to each of the one or more historical data objects based on whether the historical data object was determined to be in the first list, second list, third list, and/or fourth list.
17. The system of claim 16, wherein generating the score for each of the one or more historical data objects further comprises: assigning a weighted average score to each of the one or more historical data objects, wherein the weighted average score is an initial score if the historical data object is only in one of the first list, second list, third list, and fourth list and the weighted average score is based on a combination of initial scores when the historical data object is in two or more of the first list, second list, third list, and fourth list, the weighted average score being the score generated for each of the one or more historical data objects.
17. The system of claim 16, wherein generating the score for each of the one or more historical data objects further comprises: assigning a weighted average score to each of the one or more historical data objects, wherein the weighted average score is an initial score if the historical data object is only in one of the first list, second list, third list, and fourth list and the weighted average score is based on a combination of initial scores when the historical data object is in two or more of the first list, second list, third list, and fourth list, the weighted average score being the score generated for each of the one or more historical data objects.
18. The system of claim 17, wherein the one or more historical data objects are included in a ranked list that combines the first list, second list, third list, and fourth list, and orders the one or more historical data objects based on the respective one or more weighted average scores.
18. The system of claim 17, wherein the one or more historical data objects are included in a ranked list that combines the first list, second list, third list, and fourth list, and orders the one or more historical data objects based on the respective one or more weighted average scores.
19. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing processor-readable instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations including:
receiving a data object indicating an occurrence of a current incident associated with a configurable item, the data object including current incident metadata, the current incident metadata including a configurable item identifier (ID), a configurable item name, and a description of the current incident;
receiving a plurality of historical data objects corresponding to a plurality of previous incidents, each of the plurality of historical data objects indicating an occurrence of a previous incident and including previous incident metadata, the previous incident metadata including a configurable item ID, a configurable item name, and a description of the previous incident;
determining one or more historical data objects, of the plurality of historical data objects, that are similar to the data object based on a comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata, wherein the one or more historical data objects include a plurality of lists of historical data object, each list corresponding to a particular metadata association, wherein each list is determined by a particular current incident metadata's similarity to the corresponding metadata of the historical incident metadata;
generating a score for each of the one or more historical data objects based on the comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata;
and outputting the one or more historical data objects that are similar to the data object to a user via a graphical user interface (GUI).
19. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing processor-readable instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations including:
determining one or more historical data objects, of a plurality of historical data objects indicating an occurrence of a previous incident and including previous incident metadata, which is similar to a data object indicating an occurrence of a current incident associated with a configurable item and including current incident metadata, based on a comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata, wherein the one or more historical data objects include a plurality of lists of historical data object, each list corresponding to a particular metadata association, wherein each list is determined by a particular current incident metadata's similarity to the corresponding metadata of the previous incident metadata;
generating a score for each of the one or more historical data objects based on the comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata;
and outputting the one or more historical data objects that are similar to the data object to a user via a graphical user interface (GUI).
20. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 19, wherein determining the one or more historical data objects further comprises applying a natural language processing algorithm to the data object and the plurality of historical data objects.
20. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 19, wherein determining the one or more historical data objects further comprises applying a natural language processing algorithm to the data object and the plurality of historical data objects.
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 10-18 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 10 recites the limitation "the system" in line 1. There is a lack of clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since there were two different systems defined previously in the claim. Dependent claims 11-18 are rejected based upon their dependency on their respective parent claim.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A computer-implemented method for finding historically similar incidents in a system, the method comprising: determining one or more historical data objects, of a plurality of historical data objects indicating an occurrence of a previous incident and including previous incident metadata, is similar to a data object indicating an occurrence of a current incident associated with a configurable item and including current incident metadata, based on a comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata, wherein the one or more historical data objects include a plurality of lists of historical data object, each list corresponding to a particular metadata association, wherein each list is determined by a particular current incident metadata's similarity to the corresponding metadata of the previous incident metadata; generating a score for each of the one or more historical data objects based on the comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata; and outputting the one or more historical data objects that are similar to the data object to a user via a graphical user interface (GUI)”.
The limitations of “incident and including previous incident metadata, is similar to a data object indicating an occurrence of a current incident associated with a configurable item and including current incident metadata, based on a comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata, wherein the one or more historical data objects include a plurality of lists of historical data object, each list corresponding to a particular metadata association, wherein each list is determined by a particular current incident metadata's similarity to the corresponding metadata of the previous incident metadata; generating a score for each of the one or more historical data objects based on the comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata; and
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a computer” and “a system” to perform the claimed steps. The “computer” and “system” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a computer” and “a system” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “outputting the one or more historical data objects that are similar to the data object to a user via a graphical user interface (GUI)” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
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 using “a computer” and “a system” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “outputting the one or more historical data objects that are similar to the data object to a user via a graphical user interface (GUI)” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “utilizes a linear discriminant analysis algorithm or Gibbs sampling dirichlet mixture model algorithm to extract the topic”. 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “metadata comprises: determining a first list of historical data objects based on a similarity between a configurable item ID of the current incident and a configurable item ID of each of the previous incidents; determining a second list of historical data objects based on a similarity between a configurable item name of the current incident and a configurable item name of each of the previous incidents; determining a third list of historical data objects based on a similarity between the topic of the current incident and the topic of each of the previous incidents; and determining a fourth list of historical data objects based on a similarity between the KB article of the current incident and the KB article of each of the previous incidents”. 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A system for finding historically similar incidents in a system, the system comprising: a memory having processor-readable instructions stored therein; and at least one processor configured to access the memory and execute the processor-readable instructions to perform operations including: determining one or more historical data objects, of a plurality of historical data objects indicating an occurrence of a previous incident and including previous incident metadata, which is similar to a data object indicating an occurrence of a current incident associated with a configurable item and including current incident metadata, based on a comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata, wherein the one or more historical data objects include a plurality of lists of historical data object, each list corresponding to a particular metadata association, wherein each list is determined by a particular current incident metadata's similarity to the corresponding metadata of the previous incident metadata; generating a score for each of the one or more historical data objects based on the comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata; and outputting the one or more historical data objects that are similar to the data object to a user via a graphical user interface (GUI)”.
The limitations of “therein; and
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a system”, “a system”, “a memory” and “at least one processor” to perform the claimed steps. The “system”, “system”, “memory” and “at least one processor” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a system”, “a system”, “a memory” and “at least one processor” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “outputting the one or more historical data objects that are similar to the data object to a user via a graphical user interface (GUI)” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
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 using “a system”, “a system”, “a memory” and “at least one processor” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “outputting the one or more historical data objects that are similar to the data object to a user via a graphical user interface (GUI)” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “13, wherein the natural language processing module utilizes a linear discriminant analysis algorithm or Gibbs sampling dirichlet mixture model algorithm to extract the topic”. 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “historical data objects based on a similarity between a configurable item ID of the current incident and a configurable item ID of each of the previous incidents; determining a second list of historical data objects based on a similarity between a configurable item name of the current incident and a configurable item name of each of the previous incidents; determining a third list of historical data objects based on a similarity between the topic of the current incident and the topic of each of the previous incidents; and determining a fourth list of historical data objects based on a similarity between the KB article of the current incident and the KB article of each of the previous incidents”. 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing processor-readable instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations including: determining one or more historical data objects, of a plurality of historical data objects indicating an occurrence of a previous incident and including previous incident metadata, which is similar to a data object indicating an occurrence of a current incident associated with a configurable item and including current incident metadata, based on a comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata, wherein the one or more historical data objects include a plurality of lists of historical data object, each list corresponding to a particular metadata association, wherein each list is determined by a particular current incident metadata's similarity to the corresponding metadata of the previous incident metadata; generating a score for each of the one or more historical data objects based on the comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata; and outputting the one or more historical data objects that are similar to the data object to a user via a graphical user interface (GUI)”.
The limitations of “object indicating an occurrence of a current incident associated with a configurable item and including current incident metadata, based on a comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata, wherein the one or more historical data objects include a plurality of lists of historical data object, each list corresponding to a particular metadata association, wherein each list is determined by a particular current incident metadata's similarity to the corresponding metadata of the previous incident metadata; generating a score for each of the one or more historical data objects based on the comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata; and
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a non-transitory computer readable medium” and “at least one processor” to perform the claimed steps. The “non-transitory computer readable medium” and “at least one processor” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a non-transitory computer readable medium” and “at least one processor” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “outputting the one or more historical data objects that are similar to the data object to a user via a graphical user interface (GUI)” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
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 using “a non-transitory computer readable medium” and “at least one processor” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “outputting the one or more historical data objects that are similar to the data object to a user via a graphical user interface (GUI)” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haertel et al. ('Haertel' hereinafter) (Publication Number 20230178213) in view of Borthwick et al. ('Borthwick' hereinafter) (Patent Number 10628396).
As per claim 1, Haertel teaches
A computer-implemented method for finding historically similar incidents in a system, the method comprising: (see abstract and background)
determining one or more historical data objects, of a plurality of historical data objects indicating an occurrence of a previous incident and including previous incident metadata, is similar to a data object indicating an occurrence of a current incident associated with a configurable item and including current incident metadata, based on a comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata,
generating a score for each of the one or more historical data objects based on the comparison of the current incident metadata to the previous incident metadata; (calculate scores for comparison of metadata of prior instances of events and current metadata of current events, paragraphs [0010]-[0011],[0019])
and outputting the one or more historical data objects that are similar to the data object to a user via a graphical user interface (GUI). (display output by detection program that can be ordered list, paragraphs [0015],[0019])
Haertel does not explicitly indicate “wherein the one or more historical data objects include a plurality of lists of historical data object, each list corresponding to a particular metadata association, wherein each list is determined by a particular current incident metadata's similarity to the corresponding metadata of the previous incident metadata”.
However, Borthwick discloses “wherein the one or more historical data objects include a plurality of lists of historical data object, each list corresponding to a particular metadata association, wherein each list is determined by a particular current incident metadata's similarity to the corresponding metadata of the previous incident metadata” (a set of similar records can very likely be broken into multiple sets that are smaller by categorizing the records according to the value of another blocking field, column 11, line 60 through column 12, line 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Haertel and Borthwick because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing for fast record matching between large databases or between a moderate size input dataset and a large database including results that mimic an expert’s decisions (see Borthwick, column 2, lines 10-20). This gives the user the advantage of more efficient use of expensive resources.
As per claim 10,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 19,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Claims 2, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haertel et al. ('Haertel' hereinafter) (Publication Number 20230178213) in view of Borthwick et al. ('Borthwick' hereinafter) (Patent Number 10628396) and further in view of Walthers et al. (‘Walthers’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20180365700).
As per claim 2,
Neither Haertel nor Borthwick explicitly indicate “determining the one or more historical data objects further comprises applying a natural language processing algorithm to the data object and the plurality of historical data objects”.
However, Walthers discloses “determining the one or more historical data objects further comprises applying a natural language processing algorithm to the data object and the plurality of historical data objects” (paragraphs [0039], [0042] & claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Haertel, Borthwick and Walthers because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being able to accurately and quickly address incident reports (see Walthers, paragraph [0005]). This gives the user the advantage of reduce time and cost when the volume of incident reports is high.
As per claim 11,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 20,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haertel et al. ('Haertel' hereinafter) (Publication Number 20230178213) in view of Borthwick et al. ('Borthwick' hereinafter) (Patent Number 10628396) and further in view of Hamdi et al. (‘Hamdi’ hereinafter) Publication Number 20220107876).
As per claim 3,
Neither Haertel nor Borthwick explicitly indicate “the plurality of historical data objects are received during a pre-determined time period”.
However, Hamdi discloses “the plurality of historical data objects are received during a pre-determined time period” (paragraph [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Haertel, Borthwick and Hamdi because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing more context to help identify a resolution for an abnormal event (see Hamdi, paragraphs [0002]-[0003]). This gives the user the advantage of more identifying appropriate solutions to help solve a current problem.
As per claim 12,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haertel et al. ('Haertel' hereinafter) (Publication Number 20230178213) in view of Borthwick et al. ('Borthwick' hereinafter) (Patent Number 10628396) and further in view of Wolverton et al. (‘Wolverton’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20140136013).
As per claim 4,
Neither Haertel nor Borthwick explicitly indicate “extracting a knowledge based (KB) article and a topic from each of a descriptions of the current and previous incidents using a natural language processing module”.
However, Wolverton discloses “extracting a knowledge based (KB) article and a topic from each of a descriptions of the current and previous incidents using a natural language processing module” (abstract & paragraphs [0032],[0048]-[0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Haertel, Borthwick and Wolverton because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing a more efficient way to understand features based on current context using a specific knowledge base (see Wolverton, paragraphs [0001]-[0003]). This gives the user the advantage of providing a more timely and less expensive solution to a current issue.
As per claim 13,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 4 and is similarly rejected.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haertel et al. ('Haertel' hereinafter) (Publication Number 20230178213) in view of Borthwick et al. ('Borthwick' hereinafter) (Patent Number 10628396) and further in view of Wolverton et al. (‘Wolverton’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20140136013) and further in view of Fox et al. (‘Fox’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20200175083).
As per claim 5,
Neither Haertel, Borthwick nor Wolverton explicitly indicate “the natural language processing module utilizes a linear discriminant analysis algorithm or Gibbs sampling dirichlet mixture model algorithm to extract the topic”.
However, Fox discloses “the natural language processing module utilizes a linear discriminant analysis algorithm or Gibbs sampling dirichlet mixture model algorithm to extract the topic” (paragraph [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Haertel, Borthwick, Wolverton and Fox because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by using a faster and more computationally cheap algorithm to provide for better topic extraction. This gives the user the advantage of more efficient use of expensive resources.
As per claim 14,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 15-18 are allowable over the prior art but have outstanding 35 USC 101 rejections that must be resolved. It is further noted that claims 15-18 have additional outstanding 35 USC 112 rejections that must be resolved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAY A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights