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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD FOR ROOT CAUSE IDENTIFICATION.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “[a]n information processing apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store configuration information and alert information, the configuration information indicating inter-node connections between a plurality of nodes included in an information processing system, each of the plurality of nodes belonging to any one of a plurality of layers in the information processing system, the alert information indicating an alert generated in the information processing system; and a processor coupled to the memory and the processor configured to: calculate a base score coefficient indicating a weight for each of the plurality of nodes, based on caller- callee relationship between nodes in a same layer, the caller-callee relationship being indicated in the configuration information; calculate a base score for each of the plurality of nodes, based on the alert information and the base score coefficient, the base score being based on the alert; calculate, for each of pairs, each of which includes a respective node of the plurality of nodes and an adjacent node adjacent to the respective node, a propagation score by multiplying the base score of the adjacent node by a propagation score coefficient based on dependency relationship between the respective node and the adjacent node, the adjacent node being identified for the respective node based on the configuration information; calculate, for each node of the plurality of nodes, a failure score by summing the base score of said each node and the propagation score corresponding to a pair of said each node and an adjacent node adjacent to said each node; and identify one or more nodes that are candidates for a cause of the alert among the plurality of nodes, based on the failure scores of the plurality of nodes.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “calculate a base score coefficient indicating a weight for each of the plurality of nodes, based on caller- callee relationship between nodes in a same layer, the caller-callee relationship being indicated in the configuration information,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “calculate a base score for each of the plurality of nodes, based on the alert information and the base score coefficient, the base score being based on the alert,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “calculate, for each of pairs, each of which includes a respective node of the plurality of nodes and an adjacent node adjacent to the respective node, a propagation score by multiplying the base score of the adjacent node by a propagation score coefficient based on dependency relationship between the respective node and the adjacent node, the adjacent node being identified for the respective node based on the configuration information,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “calculate, for each node of the plurality of nodes, a failure score by summing the base score of said each node and the propagation score corresponding to a pair of said each node and an adjacent node adjacent to said each node,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “identify one or more nodes that are candidates for a cause of the alert among the plurality of nodes, based on the failure scores of the plurality of nodes,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, besides for the recitation of the elements “memory,” “node,” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “calculating” and “identify[ing]” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper calculating and identifying information. 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.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The limitation of “a memory configured to store configuration information and alert information, the configuration information indicating inter-node connections between a plurality of nodes included in an information processing system, each of the plurality of nodes belonging to any one of a plurality of layers in the information processing system, the alert information indicating an alert generated in the information processing system.” Extra-Solution Activity.
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 towards an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the limitations to enact the calculating and identifying steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites “[t]he information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to calculate the base score coefficient for each of the plurality of nodes, based on hierarchical relationship across layers to which the plurality of nodes belong in addition to the caller-callee relationship between the nodes in the same layer.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “calculate the base score coefficient for each of the plurality of nodes, based on hierarchical relationship across layers to which the plurality of nodes belong in addition to the caller-callee relationship between the nodes in the same layer,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites “[t]he information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to calculate the base score coefficient for each of nodes belonging to a first layer and including a first node, using a calculation method in which the base score coefficient for the first node increases as the base score coefficients for one or more caller nodes that belong to the first layer and call the first node increase.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “calculate the base score coefficient for each of nodes belonging to a first layer and including a first node, using a calculation method in which the base score coefficient for the first node increases as the base score coefficients for one or more caller nodes that belong to the first layer and call the first node increase,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites “[t]he information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in calculating the propagation score, the processor is configured to use a first propagation score coefficient as the propagation score coefficient in a first case where the adjacent node depends on the respective node, and use a second propagation score coefficient lower than the first propagation score coefficient as the propagation score coefficient in a second case where the respective node depends on the adjacent node.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “use a first propagation score coefficient as the propagation score coefficient in a first case where the adjacent node depends on the respective node, and use a second propagation score coefficient lower than the first propagation score coefficient as the propagation score coefficient in a second case where the respective node depends on the adjacent node,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites “[t]he information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein, in the second case where the respective node depends on the adjacent node, the processor is configured to increase the second propagation score coefficient as a ratio of an amount of resources allocated from the adjacent node to the respective node relative to an amount of resources held by the adjacent node increases.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “increase the second propagation score coefficient as a ratio of an amount of resources allocated from the adjacent node to the respective node relative to an amount of resources held by the adjacent node increases,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites “[t]he information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to change the propagation score coefficient used for calculating the propagation score, according to an attribute of the respective node and an attribute of the adjacent node.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “change the propagation score coefficient used for calculating the propagation score, according to an attribute of the respective node and an attribute of the adjacent node,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites “[t]he information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to calculate the base score for each node of the plurality of nodes, based on a number of alerts output by said each node.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “calculate the base score for each node of the plurality of nodes, based on a number of alerts output by said each node,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites “[t]he information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to calculate the base score for said each node by multiplying, for each abnormality level of abnormality levels of the alerts output by said each node, a number of alerts with said each abnormality level by a weight corresponding to said each abnormality level, summing results of the multiplying, and multiplying a result of the summing by the base score coefficient of said each node.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “calculate the base score for said each node by multiplying, for each abnormality level of abnormality levels of the alerts output by said each node, a number of alerts with said each abnormality level by a weight corresponding to said each abnormality level, summing results of the multiplying, and multiplying a result of the summing by the base score coefficient of said each node,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites “[t]he information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to identify, as the adjacent node adjacent to the respective node, a first adjacent node and a second adjacent node adjacent to the respective node via the first adjacent node, and uses, as the propagation score coefficient of the first adjacent node toward the respective node, a value higher than the propagation score coefficient of the second adjacent node toward the respective node.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “identify, as the adjacent node adjacent to the respective node, a first adjacent node and a second adjacent node adjacent to the respective node via the first adjacent node, and uses, as the propagation score coefficient of the first adjacent node toward the respective node, a value higher than the propagation score coefficient of the second adjacent node toward the respective node,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites “[t]he information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to identify two or more nodes in descending order of likelihood of being the cause of the alert, based on the failure scores of the plurality of nodes, and outputs a ranking indicating the likelihood that each of the two or more nodes is the cause of the alert.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “identify two or more nodes in descending order of likelihood of being the cause of the alert, based on the failure scores of the plurality of nodes, and outputs a ranking indicating the likelihood that each of the two or more nodes is the cause of the alert,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites “[t]he information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of layers include an application layer, and wherein the processor is configured to calculate the base score coefficient for each of the plurality of nodes including a plurality of applications belonging to the application layer, based on caller-callee relationship between the plurality of applications.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “calculate the base score coefficient for each of the plurality of nodes including a plurality of applications belonging to the application layer, based on caller-callee relationship between the plurality of applications,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 is rejected based on similar reasons given to claim 1.
Claims 13-20 are rejected based on similar reasons given to claims 1-8.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van Greunen et al. US 8,451,739 (abstract, background, summary)
OKI et al. US 2022/0334912 (abstract, background, summary)
Jividen et al. US 12,640,978 (abstract, background, summary)
Examiner’s Comments
No prior art rejections were given in this Office action. Generally, the prior arts teach methods for root cause analysis in information processing systems. Claim 1 builds on the prior arts and specifies, in part, “…calculate a base score coefficient indicating a weight for each of the plurality of nodes, based on caller- callee relationship between nodes in a same layer, the caller-callee relationship being indicated in the configuration information… calculate, for each of pairs, each of which includes a respective node of the plurality of nodes and an adjacent node adjacent to the respective node, a propagation score by multiplying the base score of the adjacent node by a propagation score coefficient based on dependency relationship between the respective node and the adjacent node, the adjacent node being identified for the respective node based on the configuration information… identify one or more nodes that are candidates for a cause of the alert among the plurality of nodes, based on the failure scores of the plurality of nodes.” Independent claims 12 and 13 recite similarly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)431-0699. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 A.M.-4:00 P.M..
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, BRYCE P BONZO can be reached at (571)-272-3655. 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.
/JONATHAN D GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights