DETAILED ACTION
The application of Gantayat et al., for “Scheduling computer system maintenance based on key performance indicators” filed on December 6, 2022 has been examined. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 6, 2022 has been considered.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 102.
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. The claim(s) recite(s) mathematical relationships/calculations.
As per claim 1, with the exception of the recitation of the limitations “a hardware processor”, the limitations “generating, by a suffix and time prediction model implemented by the hardware processor, a suffix prediction of a likely sequence of suffixes given a prefix of the process and a time prediction of time remaining to complete the likely sequence of suffixes, wherein the suffix and time prediction is based on based on the IT data and current process data; determining, with the hardware processor, a load on each of step of the process based on the suffix and time prediction; determining, with the hardware processor, one or more KPI metrics of the process based on the load of each step; generating, with the hardware processor, an IT maintenance schedule based on the one or more KPI metrics” recite the abstract idea of mathematical relationships/calculations (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. A. and C.).
Step 2A. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element(s) “a hardware processor” is/are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations of “receiving current information technology (IT) data and current process data” and “outputting the IT maintenance schedule” are mere data gathering/reporting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) “a hardware processor” does/do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and in this case generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations of “receiving current information technology (IT) data and current process data” and “outputting the IT maintenance schedule” are mere data gathering/reporting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
As for the limitations recited in claims 2-7, when considering each of the claims as a whole these additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. The additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The additional element do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
As per claims 8-13, please refer to analysis section for claims 1-7.
As per claim 14, with the exception of the recitation of the limitations “A computer program product, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable storage media and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to initiate operations”, the limitations “generating, by a suffix and time prediction model implemented by the hardware processor, a suffix prediction of a likely sequence of suffixes given a prefix of the process and a time prediction of time remaining to complete the likely sequence of suffixes, wherein the suffix and time prediction is based on based on the IT data and current process data; determining, with the hardware processor, a load on each of step of the process based on the suffix and time prediction; determining, with the hardware processor, one or more KPI metrics of the process based on the load of each step; generating, with the hardware processor, an IT maintenance schedule based on the one or more KPI metrics” recite the abstract idea of mathematical relationships/calculations (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. A. and C.).
Step 2A. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element(s) “A computer program product, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable storage media and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to initiate operations” is/are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations of “receiving current information technology (IT) data and current process data” and “outputting the IT maintenance schedule” are mere data gathering/reporting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) “A computer program product, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable storage media and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to initiate operations” does/do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and in this case generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations of “receiving current information technology (IT) data and current process data” and “outputting the IT maintenance schedule” are mere data gathering/reporting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
As per claims 15-20, please refer to analysis section for claims 2-7.
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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Khan et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20230014795).
As per claims 1, 8, and 14, Khan discloses a method/system/computer program product, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable storage media and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer-readable storage media ([0170]), comprising:
receiving, by a hardware processor, current information technology (IT) data corresponding to an IT system and current process data corresponding to a process implemented with the IT system ([0042], “as the terminal receives network and traffic data from the terminal, the terminal can generate the time series forecasting data and provide this generated time series forecasting data to the trained model every hour to produce a predicted idle time”);
generating, by a suffix and time prediction model implemented by the hardware processor, a suffix prediction of a likely sequence of suffixes given a prefix of the process and a time prediction of time remaining to complete the likely sequence of suffixes, wherein the suffix and time prediction is based on based on the IT data and current process data (Fig. 4) and ([0155]-[0157]);
determining, with the hardware processor, a load on each of step of the process based on the suffix and time prediction; determining, with the hardware processor, one or more KPI metrics of the process based on the load of each step ([0156]-[0160]);
generating, with the hardware processor, an IT maintenance schedule based on the one or more KPI metrics ([0120], “determine when to schedule maintenance”); and outputting, with the hardware processor, the IT maintenance schedule ([0121]).
As per claims 2, 9, and 15, Khan discloses the generating the maintenance schedule comprises dynamically determining a plurality of downtime windows ([0103], “Each time the server system 116 receives data traffic from one or more of the terminals 102, the server system 116 can execute the stages (A) through (K) and distribute the newly optimized models to the terminals 102. For example, the server system 116 may update each model periodically, on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis.”).
As per claims 3, 10, and 16, Khan discloses current process data corresponds to a plurality of concurrently executing processes, and wherein the determining the plurality of downtime windows maximizes a likelihood that a maximum of available resources of the IT system are available for the concurrently executing processes during the downtime windows ([0015]-[0018]).
As per claims 4, 11, and 17, Khan discloses the generating the maintenance schedule comprises generating a constraint-based scheduler based on the plurality of downtime windows and at least one of a maintenance task priority, IT resource availability, and current time ([0014]-[0016]).
As per claims 5, 12, and 18, Khan discloses the current IT data indicates an IT system failure ([0044], “if the terminal is exhibiting a memory leak or experiencing a connectivity issue”), and wherein the generating the maintenance schedule to performance maintenance on IT system elements affected by the IT system failure ([0044], “The terminal can fix the memory leak (or clearing of the cache) or install new software with the use of a reboot or restart. With the use of predicted idle times, the system 100 can avoid user service disruptions on the periodic basis and perform the scheduled maintenance with little to no impact to the end user.”).
As per claims 6, 13, and 19, Khan discloses receiving data indicating an environmental factor that affects the one or more KPI metrics (Fig. 4); and generating the maintenance schedule based on the environmental factor and the one or more KPI metrics ([0041]-[0044]).
As per claims 7 and 20, Khan discloses the environmental factor corresponds to at least one of a weather condition, supply chain disruption, or communication network disruption ([0044], “if the terminal is exhibiting a memory leak or experiencing a connectivity issue”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See included PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elmira Mehrmanesh whose telephone number is (571)272-5531. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bryce Bonzo, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3655. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Elmira Mehrmanesh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113