DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is the final action on the merits in response to the amendments and arguments filed on July 24, 2026. Claims 1, 11, and 16 were amended. Claims 1-19 and 21 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-10 and 21 are directed to a machine. Claims 11-15 are directed to a process. Claims 16-19 are directed to an article of manufacture. As such, each claim is directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
The examiner has identified independent Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claims 11 and 16.
Independent Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas: “service level agreement (SLA) management and breach detection, a workflow management to monitor a plurality of data processing jobs and to write, for each data processing job in the plurality of data processing jobs that completes successfully, information that indicates a success state for a respective data processing job identifya set of data processing jobs included among the plurality of data processing jobs to be tracked for SLA compliance; triggera step function for each data processing job in the set of data processing jobs to be tracked for the SLA compliance, wherein the step function includes a wait time that is based on a time when an SLA associated with the set of data processing jobs is to be satisfied; determinewhen the wait time of the step function has elapsed, whether the information that indicates the success state for the respective data processing job is available ; indicates one or more of SLA compliance information or SLA breach information associated with each data processing job in the set of data processing jobs to be tracked for the SLA compliance based on whether the information that indicates the success state for the respective data processing job is present ; adjust one or more values of one or more weights based on the SLA compliance information or the SLA breach information matching a predicted SLA status; send, without failing or terminating one or more data processing jobs associated with an SLA breach, one or more messages for the one or more data processing jobs associated with the SLA breach, wherein the one or more data processing jobs associated with the SLA breach are in the set of data processing jobs, and wherein the one or more data processing jobs associated with the SLA breach are identified based on the information that indicates the success state for the respective data processing job not being present ; and extendone or more SLA compliance times for the one or more data processing jobs associated with the SLA breach based on a recommendation to extend the one or more SLA compliance times , wherein the one or more SLA compliance times provide one or more deadlines for completion of the one or more data processing jobs associated with the SLA breach
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts (i.e., service level agreement (SLA) management and breach detection, a workflow management to monitor a plurality of data processing jobs and to write, for each data processing job in the plurality of data processing jobs that completes successfully, information that indicates a success state for a respective data processing job; identify a set of data processing jobs included among the plurality of data processing jobs to be tracked for SLA compliance; trigger a step function for each data processing job in the set of data processing jobs to be tracked for the SLA compliance, wherein the step function includes a wait time that is based on a time when an SLA associated with the set of data processing jobs is to be satisfied; determine when the wait time of the step function has elapsed, whether the information that indicates the success state for the respective data processing job is available; indicates one or more of SLA compliance information or SLA breach information associated with each data processing job in the set of data processing jobs to be tracked for the SLA compliance based on whether the information that indicates the success state for the respective data processing job is present; send, without failing or terminating one or more data processing jobs associated with an SLA breach, one or more messages for the one or more data processing jobs associated with the SLA breach, wherein the one or more data processing jobs associated with the SLA breach are in the set of data processing jobs, and wherein the one or more data processing jobs associated with the SLA breach are identified based on the information that indicates the success state for the respective data processing job not being present; and extend one or more SLA compliance times for the one or more data processing jobs associated with the SLA breach based on a recommendation to extend the one or more SLA compliance times, wherein the one or more SLA compliance times provide one or more deadlines for completion of the one or more data processing jobs associated with the SLA breach), but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., a system comprising one or more memories, one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, system that operates in a serverless environment, a designated storage location, a serverless compute lambda function that is automatically triggered at a scheduled time, the serverless compute lambda function is configured to allocate computing resources to the serverless compute lambda function at the scheduled time, render a user interface, adjust weights associated with a machine learning model, the machine learning model is re-trained using the recommendation to extend the one or more SLA compliance times as a re-training input). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a system comprising one or more memories, one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, system that operates in a serverless environment, a designated storage location, a serverless compute lambda function that is automatically triggered at a scheduled time, the serverless compute lambda function is configured to allocate computing resources to the serverless compute lambda function at the scheduled time, render a user interface, adjust weights associated with a machine learning model, the machine learning model is re-trained using the recommendation to extend the one or more SLA compliance times as a re-training input (in addition to the non-transitory CRM of Claim 16). The computer hardware is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic serverless / cloud platform environment, generic computers receiving, processing, and transmitting information, generic storage location storing information, generic interface displaying information, generic lambda function allocating resources to run, and generic recitation of a machine learning model outputting information and being retrained with the output) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since they do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of using computer hardware (a system comprising one or more memories, one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, system that operates in a serverless environment, a designated storage location, a serverless compute lambda function that is automatically triggered at a scheduled time, the serverless compute lambda function is configured to allocate computing resources to the serverless compute lambda function at the scheduled time, render a user interface, adjust weights associated with a machine learning model, the machine learning model is re-trained using the recommendation to extend the one or more SLA compliance times as a re-training input (in addition to the non-transitory CRM of Claim 16)) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claim 21 recites utilizing a “feedback loop to optimize one or more operational parameters of the machine learning model,” which is recited as a generic ML training technique used to implement the abstract idea, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor is it sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-19 do not include any additional elements beyond those identified above. They further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor are they sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, 17-19, and 21 are directed to an abstract idea, and do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Maskall, in combination with the other references relied upon, teaches configuring a workflow management system to monitor a plurality of data processing jobs and to write, for each data processing job in the plurality of data processing jobs that completes successfully, information that indicates a success state for a respective data processing job to a designated storage location; identify, by the one or more processors and at a scheduled time, a set of data processing jobs included among the plurality of data processing jobs to be tracked for SLA compliance; trigger, by the one or more processors, a step function for each data processing job in the set of data processing jobs to be tracked for the SLA compliance, wherein the step function includes a wait time that is based on a time when an SLA associated with the set of data processing jobs is to be satisfied; determine, by the one or more processors, when the wait time of the step function has elapsed, whether the information that indicates the success state for the respective data processing job is available in the designated storage location; render, by the one or more processors, a user interface that indicates one or more of SLA compliance information or SLA breach information associated with each data processing job in the set of data processing jobs to be tracked for the SLA compliance based on whether the information that indicates the success state for the respective data processing job is present in the designated storage location; send, by the one or more processors, one or more messages for one or more data processing jobs associated with an SLA breach, wherein the one or more data processing jobs associated with the SLA breach are in the set of data processing jobs, and wherein the one or more data processing jobs associated with the SLA breach are identified based on the information that indicates the success state for the respective data processing job not being present in the designated storage location; and extend, by the one or more processors, one or more SLA compliance times for the one or more data processing jobs associated with the SLA breach based on a recommendation to extend the one or more SLA compliance times provided by a machine learning model, wherein the one or more SLA compliance times provide one or more deadlines for completion of the one or more data processing jobs associated with the SLA breach, and wherein the machine learning model is re-trained using the recommendation to extend the one or more SLA compliance times as a re-training input. However, the combination of references does not teach that the SLA management system operates in a serverless environment, or using a serverless compute lambda function that’s automatically triggered at a scheduled time, wherein the serverless compute lambda function is configured to allocate computing resources to the serverless compute lambda function at the scheduled time.
The closest NPL, “A Systematic Review of Service Level Management in the Cloud,” teaches a system for SLA management and breach detection that operates in a serverless environment. However, it does not teach using a serverless compute lambda function that’s automatically triggered at a scheduled time, wherein the serverless compute lambda function is configured to allocate computing resources to the serverless compute lambda function at the scheduled time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 35 USC 101 Rejection of Claims 1-19 and 21:
Claim 1 as a whole is integrated into a practical application at least because it is directed to improvements to conventional SLA management systems. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the specification state that:
[0013] However, existing techniques to monitor data processing jobs for SLA compliance suffer from various drawbacks. For example, one technique to monitor data processing jobs is to use a workflow management system that can wait for an upstream dependency associated with a data processing job to be satisfied for a certain time period, after which the SLA is declared to be breached and the entire data processing job is failed to acknowledge the SLA breach. For example, a workflow management system may be configured to wait two (2) hours to receive a file or other suitable output from an upstream dependency (e.g., an external system or a relational system), where a data processing job may be triggered (e.g., start to execute) when the upstream dependency is satisfied SO that the data processing job can deliver its output to downstream data processing jobs and/or downstream users. In this context, the SLA associated with the data processing job may indicate a time or another suitable parameter related to when the output needs to be delivered to the downstream data processing jobs and/or downstream users. For example, in cases where the upstream dependency is satisfied before the wait time has elapsed, the data processing job may be appropriately triggered, and the associated SLA may be satisfied. However, in cases where the upstream dependency is satisfied before the wait time has elapsed, existing workflow management systems typically fail the entire data processing job in order to trigger remediation functions to notify support personnel to communicate that there is a delay to the concerned downstream users and/or manually retrigger the failed data processing job to extend the life of the failed data processing job, which is a time consuming and manual activity that requires active involvement from support personnel (often during off-hours when support personnel may not be working or otherwise available to resolve the upstream dependency).
[0014] In some implementations, as described herein, an SLA management system may be configured to automate various support processes that relate to monitoring data processing jobs for SLA compliance, notifying appropriate users when an SLA breach is detected (e.g., to inform downstream users to expect a delay of when the results of a data processing job will be available and/or to inform support personnel to remedy any information technology infrastructure issues that may be causing the SLA breach and/or may be caused by the SLA breach). For example, in some implementations, a data processing system may be configured to execute a set of data processing jobs, and a workflow management system may be configured to monitor a status of the data processing jobs and write information to a designated storage location when a monitored data processing job is successfully completed. Accordingly, in some implementations, the information written to the designated storage location may be used to drive the SLA management system, which may check the designated storage location at a time when an SLA associated with a data processing job needs to be satisfied (e.g., the SLA may define a deadline for completing the data processing job to ensure that the data processing job produces the desired output by a time when the desired output is needed for a downstream dependency). In this way, in cases where there is an SLA breach (e.g., the workflow management system has not written information to the designated storage location by the time that the SLA needs to be satisfied), the SLA management system may send a notification to support personnel to report the SLA breach and/or may send a message to downstream users to indicate that there will be a delay in the availability of the output from the data processing job that breached the SLA without failing or otherwise terminating the data processing job. Furthermore, in some implementations, the SLA management system may generate one or more user interfaces to display detailed information related to the SLA compliance and/or SLA breach status of the monitored data processing jobs.
Thus, the specification explicitly discusses a novel method for improving conventional SLA processing systems by avoiding scenarios in which a data processing job is unnecessarily failed or terminated. Therefore, claim 1 provides an improvement to a technology or technical field. Thus, the claim integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application and is patent-eligible under at least Step 2A, Prong Two.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Paragraphs [0013] and [0014] of the specification describe an improvement to the abstract idea itself, rather than a technical improvement. The paragraphs describe the workflow and decision rules, which are all part of the abstract idea. The sending of a notification to support personnel to report the SLA breach or a message to downstream users to indicate that there will be a delay, without failing or terminating the job, is all part of the abstract idea. The processor is a generic processor being used to implement the abstract idea, and to automate a manual process, without any technical improvement to the processor or any other technology; per MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KARMA EL-CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3404. The examiner can normally be reached T-Sa 10am-6pm ET.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571)270-1833. 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.
/KARMA A EL-CHANTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights