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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 04/16/2025 has been considered.
Applicant’s response by virtue of amendment to claim(s) 1-20 has NOT overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 15-17 are amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
Claim Objections
Claims 1- 9 are objected to because in claim 1, the Examiner is not sure if “the log file” is the same as “the vendor-specific log file” of line 7.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more and thus do not satisfy the criteria for subject matter eligibility.
Step 1
Claim(s) 1, 10, 15 fall(s) in two of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Yes
The limitations of claims 1, 10, and 15 recite concepts of managing infrastructure tasks, which falls into the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Process.
The concepts of managing tasks of computer resources components by collecting and receiving components/infrastructure data and custom file, discover relationships among the collected data, receiving target environment and requirements, mapping the requirements for the components/ infrastructure check, compatibility, and generate reports are considered commercial activities known in the Information technology industry.
This limitation, 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. That is, other than reciting “script” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the, the claim encompasses a user to simple survey, determine, and collect unstructured data and change from unstructured data to structured data, receive more data, discover relationship among the data, map the collected data and the other received data, and generate reports in his/her mind or piece of paper. The mere nominal recitation of a generic script and/or additional elements used to perform the claims does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping.
Claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: No
Claims 1, 10, and 15 additional elements are:
Claim(s) 1 and 15: Processor
Claim(s) 1, 10, 15: First discovery script
Claim 10 “An automated resources infrastructure lifecycle management system comprising a logic module configured as a non-transitory computer-readable having encoded thereon, machine instructions for automated computer resources infrastructure lifecycle management, wherein a processor executes the machine instructions to”;
Claim(s) 10: A logic module;
Claim(s) 10: Second discovery script;
Examiner does not believe the current claimed invention integrates the recited judicial exception identified under Step 2A Prong One into a practical application because the information about one or more components of a computer resources infrastructure, custom file, a target environment, computer component requirements are considered nothing more than just gathering data / receiving data.
Additionally, the additional elements that parses unstructured data to structured data and discovers relationships are claimed at a high level of generality, simply putting data from on organizational structure to another is not a recitation of an improvement of a computer functionality. Further, mapping the components requirements for the computer resources are also considered nothing more than comparing data also claimed at a high level of generality, performing a compatibility check and generate reports (i.e., remediation, end-to-end, health, etc) are considered nothing more the data comparison and data transmitting without the recitation of an improvement of a computer functionality. Therefore, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the claimed invention. When view in combination, the additional elements are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. MPEP 2106.05 (f-g). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims 1, 10, and 15 are directed to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B: No
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical.
Further, Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of Applicants' claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The claimed invention does not focus on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather certain independently abstract ideas of infrastructure management to collect data, receive data, and generate reports that use computers as tools. {Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354). (Step 2B: NO).
Further, the Office have found that receiving and transmitting data over the network is not enough to be patent-eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(d), that gathering data is not enough is not enough to be patent-eligible, see MPEP2106.05(g).
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. A VAuto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350,1355,112 USPQ2d 1093,1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hoteis.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial,Vne claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, VersataDev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306,1334,115 USPQ2d 1681,1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363,115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Even when the steps are considered in combination, did not amount to an inventive concept.
As for dependent claims 2-9, 11-14, 16-20, the claims merely recite limitations that further narrow the abstract idea recited on claims 1, 10 and 15 and thus fail to amount significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 20150264128 A1, hereinafter Huang) in view of Baskaran et al. (US 11537627 B1, hereinafter Baskaran).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 15, Huang discloses:
Claim 1 “An automated computer resources infrastructure discovery method, comprising”, Claim 10 “An automated computer resources infrastructure discovery system comprising a logic module configured as a non-transitory computer-readable having encoded thereon, machine instructions for automated computer resources discovery, wherein a processor executes the machine instructions to” Claim 15 “An automated resources infrastructure inventory management method comprising”; Figure 1;
receiving a target environment for the computer resources infrastructure; receiving computer component requirements for the computer resources infrastructure in the target environment; ([0060] “The hosting service provider (e.g. a managed infrastructure as a cloud) imposes a set of requirements on the contents that are hosted. These requirements typically have to be met before the contents can be migrated from the source to the host”; [0090] “the server side 502 captures one or more requirements of a target hosting environment in a specification”);
mapping the computer component requirements for the computer resources infrastructure in the target environment the structured text and the static information and executing a compatibility check of the computer component requirements and information in [claim 1 vendor-specific log and the custom file ] [claim 10 log file]; and ([0090] “while the client side 504 automatically checks the specification against source content of a source environment, the source content to be migrated to the target hosting environment, with a conformance checker, and determines whether the source content conforms to the specification.” [0108] the conformance checker 500);
based on the compatibility check:
identifying components that are lacking and components requiring upgrades in order to operate the computer resources infrastructure in the target environment; [0108] “If the source content does not conform to the spec 1000, the conformance checker 500 creates a report including the description for each check, and the reason, remediation action and effort for each failed check in step 920 and displays the reports in step 922.”;
automatically generating a discovery report describing the components (¶104, 108) creates reports for each check including description, reason, and remediation; ¶¶83, 85, 88; wherein (¶76) the check again source content /source server;
automatically generating a remediation report of the components that are lacking and the components requiring upgrades according to the discovery report; (¶104, 108) create reports for each check including description, reason, and remediation;
automatically generating end-to-end reports of the components according to the discovery report; and (¶104, 108) create reports for each check including description, reason, and remediation; (¶85)[for exempla] check for version Rails, runtime allowed memory, central processing, CPU, storage location;
automatically generating a health report of the computer resource infrastructure according to the discovery report. (¶104, 108) creates reports for each check including description, reason, and remediation; (¶83, 88) [for exempla] security compliance aspects (e.g., password length, expiration policy, etc.; sshd configuration 9 supported protocol versions, root login policy);
Huang does not disclose “a processor applying a first discovery script configured to automatically survey, determine, and collect information about one or more components of a computer resources infrastructure in a source environment, wherein the first discovery script is applied to collect the information by directly accessing individual components of the computer resources infrastructure, and generating a [claim 1 vendor-specific log file] [claims 10 and 15 log file] containing collected information in a form of unstructured text about the one or more components; parsing the collected information, stored in the [claim 1 vendor-specific log file ] [claims 10 and 15 log file] as unstructured text, and converting parsed, unstructured text into structured text; [claims 1 and 15 receiving a custom file specifying application and static information of at least one additional component in the computer resources infrastructure]; using the structured text and the static information, automatically discovering relationships between and among the one or more components according to the [claim 1 vendor-specific log] [claims 10 and 15 log file] and [claims 1 and 15 the custom file ] Claim 10 “Apply a second discovery script to identify an existent environment of the infrastructure”;
Baskaran discloses : 15:40-67, 16:1-20 “The intake system 210 can receive data from the data sources 202 in a variety of formats or structures…unstructured data, correlation data, data files, directories of files, data sent over a network, event logs, registries, messages published to streaming data sources, performance metrics, sensor data, image and video data, etc…In certain embodiments, the intake system 210 can perform additional processing on the incoming data, such as transforming structured data into unstructured data (or vice versa),”, 13:35-60 “Each data source 202 broadly represents a distinct source of data that can be consumed by the data intake and query system 108. Examples of data sources 202 include, without limitation, data files, directories of files, data sent over a network, event logs, registries, streaming data services (examples of which can include, by way of non-limiting example, Amazon's Simple Queue Service (“SQS”) or Kinesis™ services, devices executing Apache Kafka™ software, or devices implementing the Message Queue Telemetry Transport (MQTT) protocol, Microsoft Azure EventHub, Google Cloud PubSub, devices implementing the Java Message Service (JMS) protocol, devices implementing the Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP)), performance metrics, cloud-based services (e.g., AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, etc.), operating-system-level virtualization environments (e.g., Docker), container orchestration systems (e.g., Kubernetes), virtual machines using full virtualization or paravirtualization, or other virtualization technique or isolated execution environments”, 16:20-35 “As part of processing the data, the indexing system can identify timestamps associated with the data, organize the data into buckets or time series buckets, convert editable buckets to non-editable buckets, store copies of the buckets in common storage 216, merge buckets, generate indexes of the data, etc. In addition, the indexing system 212 can update the data store catalog 220 with information related to the buckets (pre-merged or merged) or data that is stored in common storage 216”, 140:35-67 “the indexing system 212 can automatically discover certain custom fields at index time and the regular expressions for those fields will be automatically generated at index time and stored as part of extraction rules in configuration file 3116”; see Figure 2;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Huang to include the above limitations as taught by Abdul-Jawad, in order to allow analysts to quickly search and analyze large set of raw machine data to visually identify data subsets of interest, see Baskaran 1:45-60.
Regarding claim(s) 3, Huang discloses:
further comprising automatically monitoring for changes in the one or more component and the at least one additional component in the infrastructure [0043] – monitoring usage changes;
Regarding claim(s) 4, Huang discloses:
further comprising performing a health check and standards validation on the at least one component. [0083] security compliance [0082] standard OS validation
Regarding claim(s) 5, Huang discloses:
Wherein generating the discovery report comprises generating at least one of a local server discovery report, a local storage discovery report, a local switch discovery report, an end-to-end server discovery report, an end-to-end storage discovery report, and an end-to-end switch discovery report. (¶104, 108) creates reports for each check including description, reason, and remediation; ¶¶83, 85, 88; wherein (¶76) the check again source content /source server;
Regarding claim(s) 11, Huang discloses:
wherein the processor identifies and parses data fields in the collected file and custom file. [0091] - rule objects are machine parse-able and can be automatically executed by the checker 500;
Regarding claim(s) 12 and 16, Huang discloses:
wherein automatically monitors for changes in the one or more component. [0043] – monitoring usage changes;
Regarding claim(s) 13 and 17, Huang discloses:
wherein processor performs a health check and standards validation on the infrastructure. [0083] secure compliance [0082] standard OS validation;
Regarding claim(s) 14 and 18, Huang discloses:
wherein the processor automatically generates at least one of a local server discovery report, a local storage discovery report, a local switch discovery report, an end-to-end server discovery report, an end-to-end storage discovery report, and an end-to-end switch discovery report. (¶104, 108) creates reports for each check including description, reason, and remediation; ¶¶83, 85, 88; wherein (¶76) the check again source content /source server;
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Baskaran combination as applied to claim(s) 1, and further in view of Anderson et al. (US 11205147 B1, hereinafter Anderson).
Regarding claim(s) 2, the combination, specifically Baskaran discloses: further comprising identifying and parsing unstructured data fields in the collected file according to one or more rules relevant to the computer resources infrastructure to create data objects corresponding to the one or more components, and applying an [algorisms] to the data objects to generate the structured text. 15:40-67, 16:1-20 “The intake system 210 can receive data from the data sources 202 in a variety of formats or structures…unstructured data, correlation data, data files, directories of files, data sent over a network, event logs, registries, messages published to streaming data sources, performance metrics, sensor data, image and video data, etc…In certain embodiments, the intake system 210 can perform additional processing on the incoming data, such as transforming structured data into unstructured data (or vice versa),”; 126:40-67 “the field-value pair entries 2913 can be default entries, automatically determined entries, or user specified entries. As a non-limiting example, the field-value pair entries for the fields host, source, and sourcetype can be included in the inverted indexes 2907A . . . 2907B, and 2909A . . . 2909B as a default”;
The combination does not disclose artificial intelligence device.
Anderson discloses: 10:40-55, 13:1:50 “later developed artificial intelligence approaches to parse and analyze the diverse file types, data types, and informational content in the vendor database 20”;
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Anderson in order to facilitating data-supported, see Anderson 2:40-67.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Baskaran combination as applied to claim(s) 1 and 15, and further in view of Dave et al. (US 20150341230 A1, hereinafter Dave).
Regarding claim 6-8, 19, the combination does not discloses claims 6 – “further comprising enabling a user to create favorite views by receiving specification of category and filter for information to be presented.”, claim 7 - “further comprising enabling a user to create dynamic charts by receiving specification of category, chart type, and fields for information to be presented.”, claim 8 – “further comprising enabling a user to create at least one filter criteria for information to be presented.”, and claim 19 – “further comprising enabling a user to create favorite views by receiving specification of category and filter for information to be presented, dynamic charts by receiving specification of category, chart type, and fields for information to be presented, and at least one filter criteria for information to be presented.”
Dave discloses: (¶114-115) The IT Architecture page 492 enables the user to create resources and resource groups (chart type icon and field – name proweb) (see figure 17 ) and assigne to an architectural layer [category] such as, for example, a Web Server layer,etc, or Resource groups can also be assigned to an application environment such as, for example, a Development environment [filter], etc…the architecture layout 498 in FIG. 14 is filtered with the environment view 572 as a primary filter and the layer view 574 as a secondary filter.
(Figures 2-6) (¶46) select context type host (category), (¶46) select available host (filter) the user access topology, (¶47) view the topology, (¶54) customize it (¶31) the systems and methods enable a user to customize the views and save them for future viewing in addition to launching and viewing the default topology views for various contexts according to some embodiments. Apart from saving the views, users are also able to share these custom contexts as topology definitions with other users according to some embodiments
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Dave, in order to in order to enables cloud service consumers to manage these numerous transactions associated with their cloud service providers and cloud services in an effective and efficient manner and that provides an efficient and user-friendly approach, (see: Dave, ¶9).
Claim(s) 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Baskaran combination as applied to claim(s) 1 and 15, and further in view of Lekshmanan et al. (US 20190356551 A1, hereinafter Lekshmanan).
Regarding claim(s) 9 ad 20, the combination does not disclose further comprising enabling a user to share created views, charts, and filter criteria to other users and sites.
Lekshmanan discloses: ¶31 The systems and methods enable a user to customize the views and save them for future viewing in addition to launching and viewing the default topology views for various contexts according to some embodiments. Apart from saving the views, users are also able to share these custom contexts as topology definitions with other users according to some embodiments.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combination to include the above limitations as taught by Lekshmanan, in order to in order to facilitate understanding of not just connectivity but also health, utilization, availability, and performance, and enable seamless end-to-end monitoring and troubleshooting, (see: Lekshmanan, ¶23).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments.
Affidavit
Examiner has respectfully considered the Applicant’s Affidavit filed on 04/16/2025. The MPE recites that receiving and transmitting data is not enough to not be considered an abstract idea, and to be considered a practical application. Example 40 is a good example of when collecting data goes beyond reciting the abstract idea. Claim 1 of Exempla 40 was considered directed to a practical application because the methods limit the collection of additional NetFlow protocol data only when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, thereby avoiding excess traffic volume by avoiding continual generation and export of NetFlow protocol data. That is not the case of the current application, using additional element to discovery data/collect data from another additional element directly or indirectly, to compare data, to generate reports of the compared data are not considered an improvement of the additional element; instead, it is just considered generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology). Thus, it is not enough to be considered a practical application or unconventional arrangement. Further, the questions of inventive concept under 35 USC 101 are whether the abstract idea adds significant more, not whether it is new or inventive concept compared to the prior art (35 USC 103).
For at least those reasons, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained.
35 USC 101
Examiner has respectfully considered Applicant’s arguments related to 35 USC 101 rejection filed on 04/16/2025.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claimed invention is closer to Example 39 of the 2019 PEG, see Remarks page 12-13. Exempla 39 is directed to a method that trains a neural network for facial detection with a set of collected digital images, a set of transformed digital images, and a set of digital non-facial images, and those are not the same as collecting data, comparing data, and generating reports with the compared data. Further, Examiner believes Applicant is arguing Exempla 40 instead Example 39. Examiner respectfully disagrees that Exempla 40 is closer to Applicant invention, and that Example 40 “describes a system that monitors network traffic and generates a report if anomalies are detected”, see Remarks page 13 First paragraph. To the contrary, claim 1 of Exempla 40 was considered directed to a practical application because the method limits the collection of additional NetFlow protocol data only when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, thereby avoiding excess traffic volume by avoiding continual generation and export of NetFlow protocol data.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claimed invention should not be considered a "certain method of organizing human activity", see Remarks page 13, Second paragraph. The claimed invention is directed to collecting data, comparing data, and generating reports, and thus fall under the grouping of Certain Method of Human Activities, more specifically collecting infrastructure data, comparing infrastructure data, and generating reports such as remediation report, health report, discovery report, and so on are commercial activities known in the Information technology industry. Further, the Office has found that receiving and transmitting data over the network is not enough to be patent-eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(d), that gathering data is not enough to be patent-eligible, 2106.05(g).
Examiner respectfully disagrees that this recitation also makes claim 1 patent eligible under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B, see Remarks page 13-14. The discovery script collects and receives data, and thus is not considered an unconventional arrangement as argued by Applicant. Further direct accessing data, querying data / gathering data / receiving data is considered nothing more than data being collected and received, even if it is some data, and the Office does not see gathering data, receiving, transmitting data as patentable eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(g).
For at least those reasons, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA DELIGI whose telephone number is (571)272-0503. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 07:30AM-5PM.
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, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached on (571) 272-6790. 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. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VANESSA DELIGI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627