DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
This Office Action is in response to submission of documents on March 15, 2023.
Rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Rejection of claims 1-15 as being anticipated by Zolotow.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 15, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical calculations and mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements that are recited in the claims are extra-solution activities that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because courts have found that the steps of ??? are not significantly more than a judicial exception.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim is directed to a process, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim 1 limitations include (bolded for abstract idea identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
A method comprising: constructing a library of management tasks, each management task defining task requirements as a part of metadata of the task;
measuring execution performance of each management task to generate historical task performance as an additional part of the metadata of the task;
acquiring characteristics of a computing system having a plurality of components;
determining a metadata model of the metadata of selected management tasks to be performed on the components of the computing system; and
determining a simulation model for the computing system and corresponding to the metadata model, by simulating the metadata model against the characteristics of the computing system to generate simulation results.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
Constructing a library (e.g., a list) of tasks can include identifying potential tasks and, for each task, identifying the steps to be performed for that task (e.g., a “task requirement”). This process can be performed in the human mind with pencil and paper, such as by manually listing tasks and the steps of each task based on knowledge of the user. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mental Process
The step can include a human observing a task being performed and, through evaluation, determining a quantitative or qualitative measurement indicative of performance of the task. In some instances, the process may additionally include one or more mathematical concepts (measuring time and/or resource usage and comparing the measurement to one or more other measurements). See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Idea
A model is comprised of one or more mathematical functions that are executed in order to mimic the behavior of a real system. The step can include providing one or more parameters and/or other data to a generic model to cause the model to provide output that matches what is expected in a real system. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Idea
Using a model and/or simulation to predict the behavior of a system is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more operations according to functions that describe the system. Thus, a simulation is the judicial exception of a mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
A method comprising: constructing a library of management tasks, each management task defining task requirements as a part of metadata of the task;
measuring execution performance of each management task to generate historical task performance as an additional part of the metadata of the task;
acquiring characteristics of a computing system having a plurality of components;
determining a metadata model of the metadata of selected management tasks to be performed on the components of the computing system; and
determining a simulation model for the computing system and corresponding to the metadata model, by simulating the metadata model against the characteristics of the computing system to generate simulation results.
The limitation is directed to the extra-solution activity of data gathering. The limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim and thus is minimally or tangentially related to the invention. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B, the inquiry is whether any of the additional elements (i.e., the elements that are not the judicial exception) amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Courts have found that the extra-solution activity of data gathering is insignificantly more than the recited judicial exception. See, e.g., In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982); OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites determining a visualization model for the computing system and corresponding to the simulation model, by displaying the simulation results. Generating a representation that represents data that is determined using a judicial exception (mental process and/or mathematical concepts) is an idea of a solution that is not recited with specificity such that it integrates the judicial exception into a practical application and/or improves a technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). See also Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites in response to the simulation model indicating successful metadata model simulation against the characteristics of the computing system, performing the selected management tasks on the components of the computing system. The step is a method of organizing human activity which manages the personal behavior of a person. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection II. The recited models can perform the modeling and simulations and provide output indicating the results (e.g., a display of success in modeling the performance of the tasks). In response, a user can review the results and initiate performance of one or more tasks to make the simulated changes to the system. Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites:
measuring execution performance of the selected management tasks on the components of the computing system; and
The step can include a human observing a task being performed and, through evaluation, determining a quantitative or qualitative measurement indicative of performance of the task. In some instances, the process may additionally include one or more mathematical concepts (measuring time and/or resource usage and comparing the measurement to one or more other measurements). See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
updating the historical task performance of each selected management task as the additional part of the metadata of the task within the library.
Updating a task can include providing to the library one or more different values than the previously stored data associated with a task. Providing data (i.e., transmitting data) is an extra-solution activity that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitation does not recite, with specificity, how the data is provided and therefore does not improve the functioning of a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Transmitting data is an extra-solution activity that courts have found does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites wherein the management tasks each correspond to an installable package, executable script, installable patch, or executable update, and/or update a state of a corresponding component. The step only further details types of management tasks and, as previously indicated, the generation of a library of management tasks and utilizing the management tasks in modeling and simulations is not directed to patentable subject matter. Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites wherein the task requirements of each management task specify conditions that have to be satisfied for successful execution performance of the task against a computing system component. The step only further details types of management tasks and, as previously indicated, the generation of a library of management tasks and utilizing the management tasks in modeling and simulations is not directed to patentable subject matter. Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites wherein the task requirements of each management task comprise a target component type and a target operating environment in relation to which the management task is applicable, and resource requirements and dependencies that have to be satisfied for successful performance of the management task. The step only further details types of management tasks and, as previously indicated, the generation of a library of management tasks and utilizing the management tasks in modeling and simulations is not directed to patentable subject matter. Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites wherein the characteristics of the computing system define an operating environment of the computing system and a component type of each component of the computing system. The step only further details types characteristics and, as previously indicated, utilizing characteristics in modeling and simulations is not directed to patentable subject matter. According, claim 8 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites wherein the characteristics of the computing system define system performance at different times of day and running components at the different times of day, and wherein the simulation model further specifies a time of day at which the selected management tasks are to be performed on the components of the computing system. The step only further details types characteristics and, as previously indicated, utilizing characteristics in modeling and simulations is not directed to patentable subject matter. Accordingly, claim 9 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites wherein simulating the metadata model against the characteristics of the computing system comprises simulating performance of the selected management tasks on the components of the computing system at the time of day, taking into account the system performance and the running components of the computing system at the time of day. Using a model and/or simulation to predict the behavior of a system is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more operations according to functions that describe the system. Thus, a simulation is the judicial exception of a mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I. Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites wherein the simulation model specifies whether simulated performance of the selected management tasks on the components of the computing system at the time of day was successful and a completion time of the simulated performance. The step further specifies steps that have already been rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter. Accordingly, claim 11 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 12
Step 1: The claim is directed to an article of manufacture, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim 1 limitations include (bolded for abstract idea identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
A non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium storing program code executable by a processor to:
receive a metadata model of metadata of selected management tasks to be performed on components of a computing system, the metadata of each management task comprising task requirements and historical task performance of the task; and
determine a simulation model for the computing system and corresponding to the metadata model, by simulating the metadata model against characteristics of the computing system to generate simulation results.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Idea
Using a model and/or simulation to predict the behavior of a system is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more operations according to functions that describe the system. Thus, a simulation is the judicial exception of a mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
A non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium storing program code executable by a processor to:
receive a metadata model of metadata of selected management tasks to be performed on components of a computing system, the metadata of each management task comprising task requirements and historical task performance of the task; and
determine a simulation model for the computing system and corresponding to the metadata model, by simulating the metadata model against characteristics of the computing system to generate simulation results.
Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation is directed to the extra-solution activity of data gathering. The limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim and thus is minimally or tangentially related to the invention. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B, the inquiry is whether any of the additional elements (i.e., the elements that are not the judicial exception) amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Courts have found that reciting generic computer components does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Further, Courts have found that the extra-solution activity of data gathering is insignificantly more than the recited judicial exception. See, e.g., In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982); OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites wherein the program code is executable by a processor to further: in response to the simulation model indicating successful metadata model simulation against the characteristics of the computing system, schedule performance of the selected management tasks on the components of the computing system at a time of day specified by the simulation model. The step is a mental process that includes observation of the results of the simulation, evaluating the results to determine when to perform the tasks, and providing a schedule of the tasks (e.g., sending data, an extra-solution activity that courts have found does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 13 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites:
wherein the characteristics of the computing system define system performance at different times of day and running components at the different times of day, and the simulation model further specifies a time of day at which the selected management tasks are to be performed on the components of the computing system, and wherein
The step only further details types characteristics and details of what is included in the model and, as previously indicated, utilizing characteristics and modeling to generate simulations is not directed to patentable subject matter.
simulation of the metadata model against the characteristics of the computing system comprises simulation of performance of the selected management tasks on the components of the computing system at the time of day, taking into account the system performance and the running components of the computing system at the time of day.
Using a model and/or simulation to predict the behavior of a system is a mathematical concept that includes performing one or more operations according to functions that describe the system. Thus, a simulation is the judicial exception of a mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Accordingly, claim 14 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites wherein the simulation model specifies whether simulated performance of the selected management tasks on the components of the computing system at the time of day was successful and a completion time of the simulated performance. The step only further details types characteristics and, as previously indicated, utilizing characteristics in modeling and simulations is not directed to patentable subject matter. Accordingly, claim 15 is directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zolotow, et al., (U.S. Pat. No. Pub. No. 2020/0174769, hereinafter “Zolotow”).
Claim 1
Zolotow discloses:
A method comprising: constructing a library of management tasks, each management task defining task requirements as a part of metadata of the task;
In addition or in the alternative, computing system 408 periodically queries the vendor about proposed software updates; computing system 408 receives the proposed software update from a curated database of software updates; Zolotow at [0035].
The “curated database of software updates” is analogous to a “library of management tasks.”
measuring execution performance of each management task to generate historical task performance as an additional part of the metadata of the task;
In addition, database 412 can include historical update tickets that reflect past updates and any impacts they had on computing infrastructure 401 and/or digital twin 402 during or after their implementation. Zolotow at [0030].
acquiring characteristics of a computing system having a plurality of components;
In some embodiments, to create digital twin 402 (which can accurately reflect the microcode software present in computing infrastructure 401), database 412 is set up to include information about all of the hardware, software, microcode, firmware, and operating system (OS) versions that are employed in computing infrastructure 401 (which can exist, for example, in the form of a rack layout, not shown). Zolotow at [0029].
determining a metadata model of the metadata of selected management tasks to be performed on the components of the computing system; and
In some embodiments, to create digital twin 402 (which can accurately reflect the microcode software present in computing infrastructure 401), database 412 is set up to include information about all of the hardware, software, microcode, firmware, and operating system (OS) versions that are employed in computing infrastructure 401 (which can exist, for example, in the form of a rack layout, not shown). Zolotow at [0029].
The “digital twin” is analogous to a “metadata model.”
determining a simulation model for the computing system and corresponding to the metadata model, by simulating the metadata model against the characteristics of the computing system to generate simulation results.
Because digital twin 402 is an emulated environment representing computing infrastructure 401, digital twin 402 can be used to simulate updates to computing infrastructure 401. Thereby, user 416 can deploy an update in digital twin 402, and if it creates a problem with the operability of digital twin 402, then computing infrastructure 401 will not be affected. Zolotow at [0031].
Claim 2
Zolotow discloses:
determining a visualization model for the computing system and corresponding to the simulation model, by displaying the simulation results.
In the illustrated embodiment, computing environment 400 further includes computing system 408 with dashboard 410 which is a dynamic visual representation of digital twin 402. Zolotow at [0027].
Claim 3
Zolotow discloses:
in response to the simulation model indicating successful metadata model simulation against the characteristics of the computing system, performing the selected management tasks on the components of the computing system.
If there are no additional deployments to simulate, then method 500 moves on to box 512. Here the successful simulated update deployments are judged to determine if any of them are acceptable, and, optionally, which deployment is the best. Zolotow at [0037].
Claim 4
Zolotow discloses:
measuring execution performance of the selected management tasks on the components of the computing system; and
An example of the historical data is used would be to review the success of last update to a particular component… Zolotow at [0040].
updating the historical task performance of each selected management task as the additional part of the metadata of the task within the library.
In addition, database 412 can include historical update tickets that reflect past updates and any impacts they had on computing infrastructure 401 and/or digital twin 402 during or after their implementation. Zolotow at [0030].
Claim 5
Zolotow discloses:
wherein the management tasks each correspond to an installable package, executable script, installable patch, or executable update, and/or update a state of a corresponding component.
Database 412 further includes information about current updates that can be implemented along with their corresponding criticality. For example, an OS patch to fix a potential security issue can be rated as mandatory, while a functionality upgrade to a VM can be rated as optional. Zolotow at [0029].
Claim 6
Zolotow discloses:
wherein the task requirements of each management task specify conditions that have to be satisfied for successful execution performance of the task against a computing system component.
The components and configuration of computing environment 400 allow for updates (such as microcode updates) to be planned, analyzed systematically, and assessed, for example, for compatibility, risk, and/or criticality. Zolotow at [0034].
Claim 7
Zolotow discloses:
wherein the task requirements of each management task comprise a target component type and a target operating environment in relation to which the management task is applicable, and resource requirements and dependencies that have to be satisfied for successful performance of the management task.
Thereby, the best logical and physical paths to apply the updates can be ascertained, which prevents downtime in computing infrastructure 401 and conserves the computing and personnel resources that would otherwise be required to deal with problems resulting from non-optimal update deployment. Zolotow at [0034].
Claim 8
Zolotow discloses:
wherein the characteristics of the computing system define an operating environment of the computing system and a component type of each component of the computing system.
Computing system 600 can be similar to or the same as computing system 408 (shown in FIG. 4). In the illustrated embodiment, the inputs to computing system 600 include: hardware model and type (stored in hardware database 602), microcode/firmware version (stored in microcode database 604), and software OS and drivers (stored in software database 606). Zolotow at [0043].
Claim 9
Zolotow discloses:
wherein the characteristics of the computing system define system performance at different times of day and running components at the different times of day, and wherein the simulation model further specifies a time of day at which the selected management tasks are to be performed on the components of the computing system.
From there a user, such as user 416 (shown in FIG. 4), can determine whether to deploy the updates and if so, when to deploy the updates (such as in box 514, shown in FIG. 5). Zolotow at [0046].
Claim 10
Zolotow discloses:
wherein simulating the metadata model against the characteristics of the computing system comprises simulating performance of the selected management tasks on the components of the computing system at the time of day, taking into account the system performance and the running components of the computing system at the time of day.
From there a user, such as user 416 (shown in FIG. 4), can determine whether to deploy the updates and if so, when to deploy the updates (such as in box 514, shown in FIG. 5). Zolotow at [0046].
Claim 11
Zolotow discloses:
wherein the simulation model specifies whether simulated performance of the selected management tasks on the components of the computing system at the time of day was successful and a completion time of the simulated performance.
If there are no additional deployments to simulate, then method 500 moves on to box 512. Here the successful simulated update deployments are judged to determine if any of them are acceptable, and, optionally, which deployment is the best. Zolotow at [0037].
In the illustrated embodiment, the real-time outputs of computing system 600 can be shown in table 620 and diagram 622 on dashboard 618. Dashboard 618 can be similar to or the same as dashboard 410 (shown in FIG. 4). These outputs can include: the statuses of the components of line of communication 624 (which can be similar to or the same as line of communication 300, shown in FIG. 3); the suggested updates to do, listed in the best order/path in which to do them; the deferred updates to do at a later time; the risk level of performing the update deployment; the estimated full-time equivalent (FTE), which is a measure of the amount of labor it will take to deploy the updates; and the estimated change window time, which is a measure of how long it will take the components to receive and install the updates. Zolotow at [0045].
The “change window time” is analogous to a “completion time.”
Claim 12
Zolotow discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium storing program code executable by a processor to:
receive a metadata model of metadata of selected management tasks to be performed on components of a computing system, the metadata of each management task comprising task requirements and historical task performance of the task; and
In some embodiments, to create digital twin 402 (which can accurately reflect the microcode software present in computing infrastructure 401), database 412 is set up to include information about all of the hardware, software, microcode, firmware, and operating system (OS) versions that are employed in computing infrastructure 401 (which can exist, for example, in the form of a rack layout, not shown). Zolotow at [0029].
In addition, database 412 can include historical update tickets that reflect past updates and any impacts they had on computing infrastructure 401 and/or digital twin 402 during or after their implementation. Zolotow at [0030].
In addition or in the alternative, computing system 408 periodically queries the vendor about proposed software updates; computing system 408 receives the proposed software update from a curated database of software updates; Zolotow at [0035].
determine a simulation model for the computing system and corresponding to the metadata model, by simulating the metadata model against characteristics of the computing system to generate simulation results.
Because digital twin 402 is an emulated environment representing computing infrastructure 401, digital twin 402 can be used to simulate updates to computing infrastructure 401. Thereby, user 416 can deploy an update in digital twin 402, and if it creates a problem with the operability of digital twin 402, then computing infrastructure 401 will not be affected. Zolotow at [0031].
Claim 13
Zolotow discloses:
wherein the program code is executable by a processor to further: in response to the simulation model indicating successful metadata model simulation against the characteristics of the computing system, schedule performance of the selected management tasks on the components of the computing system at a time of day specified by the simulation model.
The components and configuration of computing environment 400 allow for updates (such as microcode updates) to be planned, analyzed systematically, and assessed, for example, for compatibility, risk, and/or criticality. These activities can be performed under the past, present, or future conditions in computing infrastructure 401, and the activities can be performed across some or all of computing infrastructure 401, regardless of the provider of the various resources/assets therein. Thereby, the best logical and physical paths to apply the updates can be ascertained, which prevents downtime in computing infrastructure 401 and conserves the computing and personnel resources that would otherwise be required to deal with problems resulting from non-optimal update deployment. Zolotow at [0034].
Claim 14
Zolotow discloses:
wherein the characteristics of the computing system define system performance at different times of day and running components at the different times of day, and the simulation model further specifies a time of day at which the selected management tasks are to be performed on the components of the computing system, and wherein
From there a user, such as user 416 (shown in FIG. 4), can determine whether to deploy the updates and if so, when to deploy the updates (such as in box 514, shown in FIG. 5). Zolotow at [0046].
simulation of the metadata model against the characteristics of the computing system comprises simulation of performance of the selected management tasks on the components of the computing system at the time of day, taking into account the system performance and the running components of the computing system at the time of day.
From there a user, such as user 416 (shown in FIG. 4), can determine whether to deploy the updates and if so, when to deploy the updates (such as in box 514, shown in FIG. 5). Zolotow at [0046].
Claim 15
Zolotow discloses:
wherein the simulation model specifies whether simulated performance of the selected management tasks on the components of the computing system at the time of day was successful and a completion time of the simulated performance.
If there are no additional deployments to simulate, then method 500 moves on to box 512. Here the successful simulated update deployments are judged to determine if any of them are acceptable, and, optionally, which deployment is the best. Zolotow at [0037].
In the illustrated embodiment, the real-time outputs of computing system 600 can be shown in table 620 and diagram 622 on dashboard 618. Dashboard 618 can be similar to or the same as dashboard 410 (shown in FIG. 4). These outputs can include: the statuses of the components of line of communication 624 (which can be similar to or the same as line of communication 300, shown in FIG. 3); the suggested updates to do, listed in the best order/path in which to do them; the deferred updates to do at a later time; the risk level of performing the update deployment; the estimated full-time equivalent (FTE), which is a measure of the amount of labor it will take to deploy the updates; and the estimated change window time, which is a measure of how long it will take the components to receive and install the updates. Zolotow at [0045].
The “change window time” is analogous to a “completion time.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH MORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. 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.
JOSEPH MORRIS
Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/JOSEPH P MORRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights