DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 3/30/26 wherein:
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a system and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claims 17 and 20 recite a method and a computer-readable medium, respectively, and therefore, also fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The underlined limitations of
one or more processors;
a memory to store a set of instructions;
wherein the one or more processors execute the set of instructions to perform operations comprising:
analyzing information resources of an infrastructure for a deployed network service to determine a set of aspects of the infrastructure, each aspect including one or more hardware resources, software resources or logical components, the information resources including infrastructure code and log files; and
based on the information resources and the set of aspects, determining each of (i) one or more environmental metrics that are indicative of an attributable impact of the deployed network service to an environmental concern, and (ii) one or more performance metrics of the infrastructure for the deployed network service;
making a set of determinations that identify one or more aspects of the infrastructure that can be changed to reduce the negative impact of the detected factor to the environmental concern, by the deployed network service, without causing an unacceptable negative impact to the one or more performance metrics of the infrastructure, including unacceptable downtime or latency;
based on the set of determinations, generating, for an output interface, an actionable recommendation that identifies a change to the infrastructure of the deployed network service, to change, substitute, or replace an aspect of the set of aspects with a corresponding alternative aspect, to maintain the deployed network service while improving the impact of the dynamic factor to the infrastructure of the deployed network service; and
based on a user interaction with the output interface, generating one or more commands that cause the infrastructure of the deployed network service to reconfigure based on the actionable recommendation
are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claim is directed to analyzing information, making determinations, detecting information, making a set of determinations, based on the set of determinations, generating a recommendation, and generating a command. The "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Each of these limitations is fall into one of these categories or explicitly include a user/human being. That is, other than reciting
claim 1: a network computing system comprising one or more processors; a memory to store a set of instructions; wherein the one or more processors execute the set of instructions to perform operations, an output interface, deployed network service
claim 17: processors and an output interface, deployed network service, and
claim 20: computer-readable medium that stores instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of a network computing system, cause the network computing system to perform operations, deployed network service
nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. 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.
Alternatively, the underlined limitations
one or more processors;
a memory to store a set of instructions;
wherein the one or more processors execute the set of instructions to perform operations comprising:
analyzing information resources of an infrastructure for a deployed network service to determine a set of aspects of the infrastructure, each aspect including one or more hardware resources, software resources or logical components, the information resources including infrastructure code and log files; and
based on the information resources and the set of aspects, determining each of (i) one or more environmental metrics that are indicative of an attributable impact of the deployed network service to an environmental concern, and (ii) one or more performance metrics of the infrastructure for the deployed network service;
making a set of determinations that identify one or more aspects of the infrastructure that can be changed to reduce the negative impact of the detected factor to the environmental concern, by the deployed network service, without causing an unacceptable negative impact to the one or more performance metrics of the infrastructure, including unacceptable downtime or latency;
based on the set of determinations, generating, for an output interface, an actionable recommendation that identifies a change to the infrastructure of the deployed network service, to change, substitute, or replace an aspect of the set of aspects with a corresponding alternative aspect, to maintain the deployed network service while improving the impact of the dynamic factor to the infrastructure of the deployed network service; and
based on a user interaction with the output interface, generating one or more commands that cause the infrastructure of the deployed network service to reconfigure based on the actionable recommendation
are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Specification indicates that the invention relates to “configuring infrastructure of a network service based on impact to an environmental concern” which is a commercial or legal interaction. Specification [0001]. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of
claim 1: a network computing system comprising one or more processors; a memory to store a set of instructions; wherein the one or more processors execute the set of instructions to perform operations, an output interface, deployed network service
claim 17: processors and an output interface, deployed network service, and
claim 20: computer-readable medium that stores instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of a network computing system, cause the network computing system to perform operations, deployed network service.
The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the steps of the limitations amounts 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, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-16, 18, and 19 merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 1 or claim 17 without including a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2-16, 18, and 19 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-16, 18, and 19 merely recite further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claim 1 or claim 17 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claim 1 or claim 17; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Notice
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tung et al. (US 20090204382), in view of Desai et al. (US 20130035973), and further in view of Ekins et al. (US 20210373973).
Referring to claim 1:
Tung discloses a network computing system comprising: one or more processors; a memory to store a set of instructions; wherein the one or more processors execute the set of instructions to perform operations comprising {Tung [0125]-[0128]; a general computer system 1400, which may represent a service provider server 240, or any of the other computing devices referenced herein. The computer system 1400 may include a set of instructions 1424 that may be executed to cause the computer system 1400 to perform any one or more of the methods or computer based functions disclosed herein [0125]}:
analyzing information resources of an infrastructure for a deployed network service to determine a set of aspects of the infrastructure, each aspect including one or more hardware resources, software resources, or logical components, [the information resources including infrastructure code and log files]; and based on the information resources and the set of aspects, determining each of (i) one or more environmental metrics that are indicative of an attributable impact of the deployed network service to an environmental concern, and (ii) one or more performance metrics of the infrastructure for the deployed network service {Tung [0022][0030]-[0032]; The system may allow a user to monitor technology components in the data centers and/or workplaces of an organization to identify when a technology component, such as a server, a power delivery unit, a cooling unit, a laptop, or generally any technology component used in a data center and/or a workplace, is not operating in an energy efficient manner [0022] and provide a profile of their organization's workplaces and/or data centers, and an initial technology configuration of the workplaces and/or data centers [0030] and The technology component information may include specific data describing each component, such as the make and model of the component, the baseline power consumption model of the component, the annual operating cost of the component, or generally any data describing a technology component [0032] where the baseline power consumption is an environmental metric and The metric subsection 1130 may display metric information relating to the data center and/or workplace. For example, the metric subsection 1130 may display power allocation, in absolute numbers and/or in percentages, the overall PUE, the average, peak, and real-time power consumption, the average, peak, and real-time carbon footprint, and the power, cooling and heating capacities and costs [0117] where the metrics displayed in the metric subsection are the performance metrics and where the portion of the claim in brackets is not taught by Tung, is addressed below, and is only included here for convenience};
based on the set of determinations, generating, for an output interface, an actionable recommendation that identifies a change to the infrastructure of the deployed network service, to change, substitute, or replace an aspect of the set of aspects with a corresponding alternative aspect, [to maintain the deployed network service while improving the impact of the dynamic factor to the infrastructure of the deployed network service] {Tung [0034] [0035][0111]-[0114]; The system 100 may recommend modifications to the configurations which may result in more efficient energy use by the organization. For example, the service provider 140 may determine whether any of the technology components may be replaced with a more energy efficient technology component based on the baseline power consumption models of the components [0035] and the service provider server 240 may display a comparison of the current technology configuration and the recommended technology configuration to the user A 120A via the web application 220A [0114] where the portion of the claim in brackets is not taught by Tung, is addressed below, and is included here only for convenience}; and
a user interaction with the output interface {Tung [0037][0063][0114]; the user A 120A may specify one threshold that is applied across all of the technology components [0037]}.
Tung discloses a system for assembling a behavior model of technology components for monitoring energy efficiency of an organization technology components (abstract and [0021]). Tung does not explicitly disclose based on a user interaction with the output interface, generating one or more commands that cause the infrastructure of the deployed network service to reconfigure based on the actionable recommendation.
However, Desai discloses a similar system for assessing an organization’s green computing effort (abstract). Desai discloses [based on a user interaction with the output interface], generating one or more commands that cause the infrastructure of the deployed network service to reconfigure based on the actionable recommendation {Desai [0062][0152]; recommended initiatives that lend themselves to automation can be implemented by other software applications. For example, the assessment tool can remotely configure end user computing devices to automatically shut down at the end of the working day [0152] where Desai does not explicitly disclose the portion of the claim in brackets; however, this is addressed by Tung, above}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system including user interactions as disclosed in Tung to incorporate generating commands to reconfigure infrastructure as taught by Desai because this would provide a manner for remotely configuring computing devices to incorporate recommended initiatives (Desai [0152]), thus aiding the user by automatically implementing the recommendations.
Tung, as modified by Desai, discloses a system for assembling a behavior model of technology components for monitoring energy efficiency of an organization technology components (abstract and [0021]). Tung, as modified by Desai, does not disclose the information resources including infrastructure code and log files; detecting, from the infrastructure code and the log files, a dynamic factor that negatively impacts the one or more environmental metrics that are determined for the deployed network service; and making a set of determinations that identify one or more aspects of the infrastructure that can be changed to reduce the negative impact of the detected factor to the environmental concern by the deployed network service, without causing an unacceptable negative impact to the determined one or more performance metrics of the infrastructure . . . to maintain the deployed network service while improving the impact of the dynamic factor to the infrastructure of the deployed network service.
However, Ekins discloses a similar system for workload placement based on carbon emissions (abstract). Ekins discloses the information resources including infrastructure code and log files {Ekins [0071][0124][0155][0293]; storing and retrieving data content of pages, arranging and erasing any blocks, tracking statistics related to the use and reuse of Flash memory pages, erase blocks, and cells, tracking and predicting error codes and faults within the Flash memory [0071] and The embodiments may maintain audit logs. An audit log is a document that records an event in a computing system [0124] and the storage controller applications 324, 326 may include code that is identical to (or substantially identical to) the code that would be executed by the controllers in the storage systems described above [0155]};
detecting, from the infrastructure code and the log files, a dynamic factor that negatively impacts the one or more environmental metrics that are determined for the deployed network service {Ekins [0316][0319]; In other words, the amount of energy used in executing the workload (1716), and therefore the carbon emission cost (1704) is calculated based on a projected workload behavior. In other embodiments, the amount of used in executing the workload (1716) may be calculated independent of particular characteristics of the workload (1716) (e.g., based on historic, estimated, or projected energy uses of the particular execution environment (1712a, 1712b, 1712n) for any workload (1716)) [0319] where the amount of energy used is the dynamic factor};
making a set of determinations that identify one or more aspects of the infrastructure that can be changed to reduce the negative impact of the detected factor to the environmental concern by the deployed network service, without causing an unacceptable negative impact to the determined one or more performance metrics of the infrastructure, including unacceptable downtime or latency . . . to maintain the deployed network service while improving the impact of the dynamic factor to the infrastructure of the deployed network service {Ekins [0316][0319][0326] [0330]-[0333]; The particular arrangement of execution environments (1712a, 1712b, 1712n) may be selected as a particular combination of execution environments (1712a, 1712b, 1712n) and executed workloads (1716) having a lowest combined carbon emission cost (1704) across all execution environments (1712a, 1712b, 1712n), as a particular combination of execution environments (1712a, 1712b, 1712n) minimizing carbon emission costs (1704) while maximizing or minimizing other metrics (e.g., maximized availability, minimized cost or latency, and the like) [0326]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system including user interactions as disclosed in Tung and Desai to incorporate information resources, detecting a dynamic factor, and making a set of determinations as taught by Ekins because this would provide a manner for recommending a particular combination of execution environments and workloads that minimize carbon emission costs while maximizing or minimizing other metrics as desired (Ekins [0326]), thus aiding the user by reducing carbon emissions while provide optimal performance.
Referring to claim 2:
Tung, as modified by Desai and Ekins, discloses wherein the operations include: correlating each aspect of the infrastructure with a corresponding environmental metric, the attributable impact of the network service to the environmental concern being based at least in part on the corresponding environmental metric of each aspect {Tung [0034][0054][0111]-[0113]; the service provider server 240 may search the data store 245 for a component that is more efficient, either cost-wise, power-consumption wise, or carbon emissions-wise, than the component currently used by the organization [0111]}.
Referring to claim 3:
Tung, as modified by Desai and Ekins, discloses wherein the one or more environmental metrics are indicative of an amount of carbon emissions generated by the infrastructure in providing the network service {Tung [0034][0054][0111]-[0113]; the service provider server 240 may search the data store 245 for a component that is more efficient, either cost-wise, power-consumption wise, or carbon emissions-wise, than the component currently used by the organization [0111]}.
Referring to claim 4:
Tung, as modified by Desai and Ekins, discloses wherein the operations further comprise: determining one or more environmental metrics for an aspect of the infrastructure by measuring or calculating energy consumption associated with the aspect {Tung [0034][0054][0099][0111]-[0113]; The service provider server 240 may also provide the user A 120A with expert suggestions for the forecasts, such as expert predictions of the increase in the cost of electricity or expert predictions of the tons of carbon generated per kilowatt hour of energy consumed [0099]}.
Referring to claim 5:
Tung, as modified by Desai and Ekins, discloses wherein the operations includes: for each aspect of the set of aspects, (i) determining an environmental metric that is indicative of the attributable impact of the aspect to the environmental concern; (ii) a corresponding alternative aspect and (iii) a corresponding environmental metric of the corresponding alternative aspect; and wherein making the set of determinations includes, for each aspect of the set, making a determination to change the aspect of the set of aspects based on a comparison of the environmental metric of that aspect with the environmental metric of the corresponding alternative aspect {Tung [0034][0035][0111]-[0113]; the service provider server 240 may search the data store 245 for a component that is more efficient, either cost-wise, power-consumption wise, or carbon emissions-wise, than the component currently used by the organization . . . the service provider server 240 may determine whether a more efficient component exists, capable of replacing one or more components in the current technology configuration of the organization [0111]}.
Referring to claim 6:
Tung, as modified by Desai and Ekins, discloses wherein generating the actionable recommendation includes identifying an corresponding alternative aspect for one or more aspects of the set, along with an indication that represents a reduction of detrimental impact attributable to the network service with regards to the environmental concern, resulting from implementing the infrastructure to include the corresponding alternative aspect {Tung [0034][0035][0111]-[0114]; the service provider server 240 may display a comparison of the current technology configuration and the recommended technology configuration to the user A 120A via the web application 220A. The comparison may display to the user A 120A the annual costs and the annual carbon emissions achieved by the current technology configuration of the user A 120A, and those achieved by the recommended technology configuration [0114]}.
Referring to claim 7:
Tung, as modified by Desai and Ekins, discloses wherein generating the actionable recommendation includes providing, for the output interface, an indication of a change to the performance of the network service once the corresponding alternative aspect of the recommendation is implemented {Tung [0021][0111]-[0114]; The annual costs and the annual carbon emissions may be determined using the baseline power consumption models for the technology components in the current technology configuration and the technology components in the recommended technology configuration. At step 980, the service provider server 240 may display a forecast of the future energy and cost savings achievable by the recommended technology configuration over the initial technology configuration of the user A 120A [0114]}.
Referring to claim 8:
Tung, as modified by Desai and Ekins, discloses wherein generating the actionable recommendation includes identifying the corresponding alternative aspect for one or more aspects of the set, along with each of (i) an indication of a reduction of the environmental concern resulting from implementing the infrastructure to include the corresponding alternative aspect, and (ii) an indication of a performance metric of the infrastructure once the corresponding alternative aspect is implemented {Tung [0021] [0111]-[0114]; The comparison may display to the user A 120A the annual costs and the annual carbon emissions achieved by the current technology configuration of the user A 120A, and those achieved by the recommended technology configuration. The annual costs and the annual carbon emissions may be determined using the baseline power consumption models for the technology components in the current technology configuration and the technology components in the recommended technology configuration. At step 980, the service provider server 240 may display a forecast of the future energy and cost savings achievable by the recommended technology configuration over the initial technology configuration of the user A 120A [0114] where the forecasted future energy savings provides an indication of the performance metric of the infrastructure}.
Referring to claim 9:
Tung, as modified by Desai and Ekins, discloses wherein making the set of determinations includes determining that implementing the infrastructure to include the corresponding alternative aspect satisfies a performance criterion {Tung [0035]; For example, the service provider 140 may determine whether any of the technology components may be replaced with a more energy efficient technology component based on the baseline power consumption models of the components [0035] where the determination that the replacement component is more energy efficient than the current component is a determination that the replacement component satisfies a performance criterion}.
Referring to claim 10:
Tung, as modified by Desai and Ekins, discloses wherein making the set of determinations includes determining that implementing the infrastructure to include the corresponding alternative aspect satisfies a cost criterion {Tung [0035]; The service provider 140 may automatically analyze the technology configurations identified by the user A 120A to determine whether the technology configurations may be modified to increase the energy and/or cost saving efficiencies [0035]}.
Referring to claim 11:
Tung, as modified by Desai and Ekins, discloses wherein the set of aspects of the infrastructure provisioned for the network service includes a location associated with at least one aspect of a set of aspects {Tung [0030][0031] [0116]; The user A 120A may provide a separate profile and technology configuration of each workplace and/or data center operated by the organization, or the user A 120A may provide an aggregate profile and configuration of all of the workplaces and/or data centers operated by the organization. The profile information may describe the geographic location, the industry, the number of employees, and/or any general characteristics describing the workplaces and/or data centers [0030] and The inventory of technology components in a workplace may include laptops, monitors, desktops, printers, thin clients, network devices, or generally any technology utilized in the workplace [0031]}.
Referring to claim 17:
Claim 17 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 1.
Referring to claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 5.
Referring to claim 19:
Claim 19 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 11.
Referring to claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tung et al. (US 20090204382), in view of Desai et al. (US 20130035973), in view of Ekins et al. (US 20210373973), and further in view of Prabhakar et al. (US 20120240123).
Referring to claim 12:
Tung, as modified by Desai and Ekins, discloses a system for assembling a behavior model of technology components for monitoring energy efficiency of an organization technology components (abstract and [0021]). Tung, as modified by Desai and Ekins, does not explicitly disclose wherein the set of aspects of the infrastructure include a job or workflow that is executed in connection with implementing the network infrastructure providing the network service.
However, Prabhakar discloses a similar system for energy and performance optimizing job scheduling (abstract). Prabhakar discloses wherein the set of aspects of the infrastructure include a job or workflow that is executed in connection with implementing the network infrastructure providing the network service {Prabhakar [0010]; a data processing system for energy and performance optimizing job scheduling according to embodiments of the present invention [0010]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Tung, Desai, and Ekins to incorporate including a job or workflow as an aspect of the infrastructure as taught by Prabhakar because this would provide a manner for considering the processes executed by the network service (Prabhakar [0010]), thus aiding the user by optimizing job scheduling to decrease power consumption.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tung et al. (US 20090204382), in view of Desai et al. (US 20130035973), in view of Ekins et al. (US 20210373973), and further in view of Weldemariam et al. (US 11307971).
Referring to claim 13:
Tung, as modified by Desai and Ekins, discloses a system for assembling a behavior model of technology components for monitoring energy efficiency of an organization technology components (abstract and [0021]). Tung, as modified by Desai and Ekins, does not disclose wherein analyzing the information resources includes analyzing the infrastructure code.
However, Weldemariam discloses a similar system for analyzing computer code to determine associated carbon dioxide emissions (abstract). Weldemariam discloses wherein analyzing the information resources includes analyzing the infrastructure code {Weldemariam 5:57-6:5; Static and dynamic source code analysis technology (e.g., SonarQube and OverOps) can be used to perform code analysis on the source code 202 focused on carbon emission metrics [5:57-6:5]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Tung, Desai, and Ekins to incorporate analyzing code as taught by Weldemariam because this would provide a manner for determining carbon emissions associated with the code (Weldemariam 5:57-6:5), thus aiding the user by allowing them to consider ways to reduce carbon emissions.
Referring to claim 14:
Tung, as modified by Desai and Ekins, discloses a system for assembling a behavior model of technology components for monitoring energy efficiency of an organization technology components (abstract and [0021]). Tung, as modified by Desai, does not disclose wherein analyzing the information resources includes performing textual analysis of one or more configuration files or usage logs generated by implementation of the network service.
However, Weldemariam discloses a similar system for analyzing computer code to determine associated carbon dioxide emissions (abstract). Weldemariam discloses wherein analyzing the information resources includes performing textual analysis of one or more configuration files or usage logs generated by implementation of the network service {Weldemariam 11:33-44; A knowledge base (not shown) of test results can store results associated with test case failure(s). In some embodiments, test case dependency generation may be configured and integrated with existing workflow tools (e.g., Jacoco-Maven-plugin could be integrated with SonarQube, Eclipse, IntelliJ) to continuously scan test cases for carbon footprint compliance and update the knowledge base [11:33-44]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Tung, Desai, and Ekins to incorporate analyzing files as taught by Weldemariam because this would provide a manner for determining carbon emissions associated with the code (Weldemariam 5:57-6:5), thus aiding the user by allowing them to consider ways to reduce carbon emissions.
Referring to claim 15:
Tung, as modified by Desai, Ekins, and Weldemariam, discloses wherein analyzing the information resources includes monitoring usage information generated by implementation of the network service, and making the set of determinations is based at least in part on the usage information {Tung [0058][0065][0066][0079]; The baseline power consumption model may include the power consumed by the technology component when operating in various states, such as when operating in an offline state, an online state, and/or a startup state. If the utilization of the technology component can also be monitored, the power consumption model may also incorporate the utilization of the technology component [0058]}.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tung et al. (US 20090204382), in view of Desai et al. (US 20130035973), in view of Ekins et al. (US 20210373973), and further in view of Sharma et al. (US 20220156120).
Referring to claim 16:
Tung, as modified by Desai and Ekins, discloses a system for assembling a behavior model of technology components for monitoring energy efficiency of an organization technology components (abstract and [0021]). Tung, as modified by Desai and Ekins, does not disclose wherein the actionable recommendation includes changing a geographic location of one of the aspects of the set.
However, Sharma discloses a similar system for making recommendations for a green cloud computing system (abstract). Sharma discloses wherein the actionable recommendation includes changing a geographic location of one of the aspects of the set {Sharma [0079][0085]; representative of a suggested CSP location for migrating a portion or all of a DC, e.g., moves the CSP location to a different location and/or to a different CSP, a new green card can accordingly be generated and saved in a dashboard of the user interface that is representative of this interaction [0085]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Tung, Desai, and Ekins to incorporate recommending changing locations of one of the aspects as taught by Sharma because this would provide a manner for migrating a datacenter to a different location (Sharma [0085]), thus aiding the user by considering the environmental impact when moving locations.
Response to Arguments
Examiner thanks Applicant for identifying support in the Specification for the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the characterization of the claims as mental processes “ignores the claim elements, which are technical, concrete, and fall outside of the ability of the human mind.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. All claim elements have been addressed and the technical elements have been identified as additional elements, not part of the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the claims provide a technical solution by “generating commands that cause the infrastructure of the deployed network service to reconfigure based on the actionable recommendation,” “to maintain the deployed network service while improving the impact of the dynamic factor to the infrastructure of the deployed network service,” which is recited in claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees that this provides a technical solution. As is stated in the MPEP, if it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. Here, the Specification merely sets forth an improvement in a conclusory manner, stating that the system generates commands to maintain the service. This is only described at a high level. The computer, itself, does not provide improvements similar to that of McRO, such as performing actions the computer could not previously perform. The Examiner, therefore, must find that the claim does not improve technology.
Applicant further argues that the additional elements of claim 1 include several claim limitations, including the limitations related to detecting a dynamic factor, making a set of determinations, based on the set of determinations, generating a recommendation, and generating commands to reconfigure the infrastructure based on the recommendation. Remarks 10. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As is indicated above, these limitations do not qualify as additional elements. The additional elements are the non-abstract elements identified in the 101 rejection above (for example, the processors and memory in claim 1). However, as is also stated in the rejection, the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
Applicant also argues that subject matter eligibility can be found by considering the claims both individually and as an ordered combination. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant does not identify how the additional elements, when considered as an ordered combination provide eligible subject matter. The rejection stands.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the claims as amended. In response to the amended claim limitations, Examiner has provided new art which addresses the amended limitations, as well as the limitations which are argued by Applicant, therefore rendering those arguments moot.
Conclusion
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 CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights