DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in request to applicant’s amendments filed on 09/19/2025.
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 6-14 are cancelled. Claims 1-5 are considered in this Office Action. Claims 1-5 are currently pending.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection to claims have been considered, however they are not persuasive. An updated the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection will address applicant’s amendment.
Applicant asserts that the claimed infrastructure capacity heatmap provides a single pane view of data relating to a plurality of projects being executed by a network of servers and uses the single pane view to determine a delivery plan for each of the projects and mitigates disruptions, within the network of servers, to the delivery plan. As such, the claimed infrastructure capacity heatmap is directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate and is therefore not directed to an abstract idea.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that a heatmap is an abstract concept that can be performed using a pen and paper. The examiner further notes the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection is maintained and an updated the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection will address applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 recites the phrase “... In response to identifying delays in programs that are being executed by the network of servers, mitigating constraints that are causing the delays, the mitigating including selecting and executing, via computer executable instructions configured to be executed by a processor, a mitigation step from the following mitigation steps to account for the constraints that are causing the delays: (a) prioritizing computing infrastructure based on the identified delays; (b) temporarily right sizing capacity of servers included in the network of servers; (c) identifying and utilizing additional data centers where capacity is available and latency is not an issue; and (d) decommissioning some servers included in the network of servers to reallocate capacity ...’ However, the Examiner is unable to find any generic or specific description or steps in the instant specification that show that Applicant was in possession of a technique that configures of mitigating constraints that are causing the delays, the mitigating including selecting and executing, via computer executable instructions configured to be executed by a processor, a mitigation step from the following mitigation steps to account for the constraints that are causing the delays: (a) prioritizing computing infrastructure based on the identified delays; (b) temporarily right sizing capacity of servers included in the network of servers; (c) identifying and utilizing additional data centers where capacity is available and latency is not an issue; and (d) decommissioning some servers included in the network of servers to reallocate capacity. Applicant’s Specification discloses in para. 0073 “...mitigation steps, to offset the previously-mentioned constraints may include the following. The mitigation steps include the fact that prioritization will be given on a go- forward to priority-driven hardware requirements over initiative efforts, prioritization will be given to new infrastructure based on the programs that are delayed/impacted, temporary right-sizing capacity of servers based on constraints from inputs TI/CIO may be implemented, alternative data centers where capacity is available and latency is not an issue may be looked at for additional capacity and decommissioning may be expedited to reallocate capacity.....”, however the specification is silent on how selecting and executing, via computer executable instructions configured to be executed by a processor, a mitigation step from the following mitigation steps as recited in the claims.
Thus, there is no evidence of a complete specific application or embodiment to satisfy the requirement that the description is set forth “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms” to show possession of the claimed invention. Fields v. Conover, 443 F.2d 1386, 1392, 170 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1971).
Claims 2-5 depend from one of claim 1 and fail to cure the deficiency noted above, and are therefore rejected based on dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the “Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1-5) is directed to an eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea of generating a heatmap to predict, highlight, and respond to current and future capacity gaps to manage projects which is a concept that can be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion or by a human using a pen and paper, which falls into the “mental processes” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The claims further recite an abstract idea which falls into Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk) and commercial or legal interactions (marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The use of computer/computer components to perform the abstract idea does not negate the abstractness of the claims. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted in italics and the limitation directed to additional elements highlighted in bold, as set forth in exemplary claim 1, are A method for predicting, highlight and respond to current and future capacity gaps occurring within a network of servers using an infrastructure capacity heatmap, the method comprising: providing a demand management heatmap portal, said demand management heatmap portal comprising: entity requirement data; demand forecast confidence data; and demand variances data; providing a demand technology dependency/forecast confidence heatmap portal, said demand technology dependency/forecast confidence heatmap portal comprising: time-to-market requirement data; at-risk projects data; and hardware availability data; providing a supply side capacity heatmap portal for determining availability and delivery risk, said supply side capacity heatmap portal comprising: hardware product shortage data; data center/hosting capacity data; and service requirements data; integrating data from the demand management heatmap portal, the demand technology dependency/forecast confidence heatmap portal and the supply side capacity heatmap portal to generate the infrastructure capacity heatmap, the infrastructure capacity heatmap including: a listing of a plurality of projects; a listing of requirement conditions, the listing of requirement conditions extracted from the demand management heatmap portal; a listing of constraints that impact execution of each project, the listing of constraints extracted from the supply side capacity heatmap portal; a status for each project, the status extracted from the demand technology dependency/forecast confidence heatmap portal, the status being updated based on a feedback loop between supply side capacity heatmap portal and the demand technology dependency/forecast confidence heatmap portal, the feedback loop including changing the status in response to a change in available server capacity; and an indication of importance for each project; displaying the infrastructure capacity heatmap on a single pane view in an electronic display; using the infrastructure capacity heatmap, generating a pipeline for forecasting a delivery plan for each project, the pipeline segmenting each project into a plurality of programs, the pipeline including a trending status; and In response to identifying delays in programs that are being executed by the network of servers, mitigating constraints that are causing the delays, the mitigating including selecting and executing, via computer executable instructions configured to be executed by a processor, a mitigation step from the following mitigation steps to account for the constraints that are causing the delays: (a) prioritizing computing infrastructure based on the identified delays; (b) temporarily right sizing capacity of servers included in the network of servers; (c) identifying and utilizing additional data centers where capacity is available and latency is not an issue; and (d) decommissioning some servers included in the network of servers to reallocate capacity.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to a pipeline (recited at high level), displaying the infrastructure capacity heatmap on a single pane view in an electronic display (amounts to outputting information which is an extra-solution activity)and mitigating constraints that are causing the delays, the mitigating including selecting and executing, via computer executable instructions configured to be executed by a processor, a mitigation step from the following mitigation steps to account for the constraints that are causing the delays: (a) prioritizing computing infrastructure based on the identified delays; (b) temporarily right sizing capacity of servers included in the network of servers; (c) identifying and utilizing additional data centers where capacity is available and latency is not an issue; and (d) decommissioning some servers included in the network of servers to reallocate capacity(recited at high level of generality and amounts to sending instruction to an operator to make changes) to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification [0027] describe high level general purpose computer) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: a pipeline (recited at high level), displaying the infrastructure capacity heatmap on a single pane view in an electronic display (amounts to outputting information which is an extra-solution activity)and mitigating constraints that are causing the delays, the mitigating including selecting and executing, via computer executable instructions configured to be executed by a processor, a mitigation step from the following mitigation steps to account for the constraints that are causing the delays: (a) prioritizing computing infrastructure based on the identified delays; (b) temporarily right sizing capacity of servers included in the network of servers; (c) identifying and utilizing additional data centers where capacity is available and latency is not an issue; and (d) decommissioning some servers included in the network of servers to reallocate capacity(recited at high level of generality and amounts to sending instruction to an operator to make changes) to implement the abstract idea. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification ([0027]) describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general-purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Prior Art Discussion
The closest prior art fails to teach or suggest, either singularly or in combination, A method for predicting, highlight and respond to current and future capacity gaps occurring within a network of servers using an infrastructure capacity heatmap, the method comprising: providing a demand management heatmap portal, said demand management heatmap portal comprising: entity requirement data; demand forecast confidence data; and demand variances data; providing a demand technology dependency/forecast confidence heatmap portal, said demand technology dependency/forecast confidence heatmap portal comprising: time-to-market requirement data; at-risk projects data; and hardware availability data; providing a supply side capacity heatmap portal for determining availability and delivery risk, said supply side capacity heatmap portal comprising: hardware product shortage data; data center/hosting capacity data; and service requirements data; integrating data from the demand management heatmap portal, the demand technology dependency/forecast confidence heatmap portal and the supply side capacity heatmap portal to generate the infrastructure capacity heatmap, the infrastructure capacity heatmap including: a listing of a plurality of projects; a listing of requirement conditions, the listing of requirement conditions extracted from the demand management heatmap portal; a listing of constraints that impact execution of each project, the listing of constraints extracted from the supply side capacity heatmap portal; a status for each project, the status extracted from the demand technology dependency/forecast confidence heatmap portal, the status being updated based on a feedback loop between supply side capacity heatmap portal and the demand technology dependency/forecast confidence heatmap portal, the feedback loop including changing the status in response to a change in available server capacity; and an indication of importance for each project; displaying the infrastructure capacity heatmap on a single pane view in an electronic display; using the infrastructure capacity heatmap, generating a pipeline for forecasting a delivery plan for each project, the pipeline segmenting each project into a plurality of programs, the pipeline including a trending status; and In response to identifying delays in programs that are being executed by the network of servers, mitigating constraints that are causing the delays, the mitigating including selecting and executing, via computer executable instructions configured to be executed by a processor, a mitigation step from the following mitigation steps to account for the constraints that are causing the delays: (a) prioritizing computing infrastructure based on the identified delays; (b) temporarily right sizing capacity of servers included in the network of servers; (c) identifying and utilizing additional data centers where capacity is available and latency is not an issue; and (d) decommissioning some servers included in the network of servers to reallocate capacity as recited in independent claim 1.
The closest prior art of record is Kentley (US 20200034443 A1), Montgomery (US 20200034443 A1), Haggar (US 20160148133 A1), Iftimie (US 20200143293 A1), Hanley (US 20150095102 A1), Wolf (US 20120232948 A1), and Aram (US 20020072986 A1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20220261032 A1
Deep Learning-Based Holdover Compensation, and Related Systems, Methods and Devices
Bateni; Ehsan
US 20210409907 A1
Methods and Devices for Displaying a Heat Map and Providing Heat Data
Zhang; Wentao et al.
US 20190332294 A1
Automated Data Quality Servicing Framework for Efficient Utilization of Information Technology Resources
Kilari; Koteswara Rao
US 20190104183 A1
Computing Infrastructure Scalability Assessment
Riesbeck; Mark
US 20170339013 A1
Deploying and Monitoring Multiplatform Cloud-Based Infrastructures
Allen; Paul Dennis
US 20170124501 A1
System For Automated Capture and Analysis of Business Information for Security and Client-Facing Infrastructure Reliability
Crabtree; Jason et al.
US 20110004506 A1
System And Method of Using Demand Model to Generate Forecast and Confidence Interval for Control of Commerce System
May; Brent et al.
US 20100131379 A1
Managing Consistent Interfaces for Merchandise and Assortment Planning Business Objects Across Heterogeneous Systems
Dorais; Marc et al.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571)-270-5389. 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.
/REHAM K ABOUZAHRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625