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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the following limitations:
1. A computer-implemented method for improving codification of institutional knowledge using machine learning and artificial intelligence modeling, comprising:
in response to prompting a user to describe a future state of a computing system (prompting description of a future state of a computing system in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper);
receiving a description of the future state of the computing system (receiving a description of the future state of the computing system in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper);
determining specific properties of the future state of the computing system (determining specific properties of the future state of the computing system in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper);
predicting a solution architecture based on the specific properties of the future state of the computing system (predicting a solution architecture based on the specific properties of the future state of the computing system in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper); and
generating infrastructure-as-code for a future computing environment, wherein the infrastructure-as-code corresponds to the solution architecture (generating infrastructure-as-code for a future computing environment in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper);
The claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements:
via one or more processors (amounts to a generic computer component to perform a computer function as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: generating one or more cloud data and technology solutions corresponding to the future state (amounts to mere data gathering, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is well understood, routine and convention activity of receiving or gathering data as identified by the court in MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: generating one or more minibots corresponding to the future state of the computing system (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of applying it under MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising: receiving one or more responses from a user in response to the one or more minibots (amounts to mere data gathering, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is well understood, routine and convention activity of receiving or gathering data as identified by the court in MPEP 2106.05(d)); and
processing the one or more responses, respectively, using the one or more minibots to generate the infrastructure-as-code (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of applying it under MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising: merging respective solution architectures of the one or more minibots (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of applying it under MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising: processing the description of the future state of the computing system using at least one of a descriptive analytics model, a predictive analytics model, a diagnostic analytics model or a prescriptive analytics model to generate the one or more minibots (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of applying it under MPEP 2106.05(d)); and
generating one or more responses to the user using the one or more minibots (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of applying it under MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 6, further comprising: processing data output by the predictive analytics model or the descriptive analytics model further using one or more additional machine learning models to generate a next best action for skill enhancement (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of applying it under MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the description of the future state of the computing system includes one or more natural language utterances (amounts to generally linking the abstract ideas to the technological environment or field of use as discussed in in MPEP 2106.05(h)), and further comprising:
processing natural language utterances using a natural language processing model to generate at least one of a user objective, a user intent or a request specification (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of applying it under MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
processing the description of the future state of the computing system using a first trained machine learning model to collect information (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of applying it under MPEP 2106.05(d));
processing the information using a second trained machine learning model to generate an extracted and classified information data set (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of applying it under MPEP 2106.05(d)); and
processing the extracted and classified information data set using a third trained machine learning model to orchestrate a pipeline including a plurality of minibots (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of applying it under MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 9, further comprising: further training the first trained machine learning model, the second trained machine learning model or the third trained machine learning model using output of one or more of the plurality of minibots (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of applying it under MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the pipeline including the plurality of minibots is arranged linearly or as a directed graph (amounts to generally linking the abstract ideas to the technological environment or field of use as discussed in in MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 12-22 are system claims having similar limitation as claims 1-11 and are rejected under the same rationale. The additional elements in claim 12 is A computing system for improving codification of institutional knowledge using machine learning and artificial intelligence modeling, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories having stored thereon instructions that, when executed, cause the computing system to (amounts to performing generic function of execution of stored instructions (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into practical application and are not sufficient to amount to significant more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are an abstract idea.
Claims 23-30 are non-transitory computer readable storage medium claims having similar limitation as claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 11 and are rejected under the same rationale. The additional elements in claim 23 is A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a computer to (amounts to performing generic function of execution of stored instructions (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into practical application and are not sufficient to amount to significant more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are an abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 12-18 and 23-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Ratnapuri et al (US 20210174280 A1).
1. A computer-implemented method for improving codification of institutional knowledge using machine learning and artificial intelligence modeling (See abstract on automated cloud migration, [0125] on using machine learning), comprising:
in response to prompting, via one or more processors, a user to describe a future state of a computing system, receiving, via one or more processors, a description of the future state of the computing system (See [0003] on evaluation process, [0044] on input, Fig. 1-102, Fig. 2-202 on assessment stage, [0111] on prompt);
determining, via one or more processors, specific properties of the future state of the computing system ([0079] evaluating future needs);
predicting, via one or more processors, a solution architecture based on the specific properties of the future state of the computing system (Fig. 1-208 on planning & strategy); and
generating, via one or more processors, infrastructure-as-code for a future computing environment, wherein the infrastructure-as-code corresponds to the solution architecture ([0003] creation of a plan or “roadmap”, [0093] infrastructure-as-code).
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: generating one or more cloud data and technology solutions corresponding to the future state (see [0124]-[0125] on cloud).
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: generating one or more minibots corresponding to the future state of the computing system (See [0018] on modules. Examiner Note: minibots are functional equivalent as modules).
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising: receiving one or more responses from a user in response to the one or more minibots; and processing the one or more responses, respectively, using the one or more minibots to generate the infrastructure-as-code See [0003] on evaluation process, [0044] on input, Fig. 1-102, Fig. 2-202 on assessment stage, [0111] on prompt, [0003] creation of a plan or “roadmap”, [0093] infrastructure-as-code).
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising: merging respective solution architectures of the one or more minibots (see [0094]).
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising: processing the description of the future state of the computing system using at least one of a descriptive analytics model, a predictive analytics model, a diagnostic analytics model or a prescriptive analytics model to generate the one or more minibots; and generating one or more responses to the user using the one or more minibots (See [0124]).
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 6, further comprising: processing data output by the predictive analytics model or the descriptive analytics model further using one or more additional machine learning models to generate a next best action for skill enhancement (see [0125] on using machine learning. Fig2-209a iterative planning/wave assignment. Examiner Note: iterative planning indicated generating new best action).
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the description of the future state of the computing system includes one or more natural language utterances, and further comprising: processing natural language utterances using a natural language processing model to generate at least one of a user objective, a user intent or a request specification (See abstract on desired outcome and business goal, Fig. 3 on natural language questions and processing).
Claims 12-18 and 23-28 are system and non-transitory computer readable storage medium claims having similar limitation as of claims 1-8 and are rejected under the same rationale. See [0014]-[0015] for system and medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 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 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(s) 9-11, 20-22, 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratnapuri et al (US 20210174280 A1) in view of Carroll et al (US 20170034016 A1) and Nguyen et al (US 20160034530 A1)
Claim 9: While Ratnapuri disclose using machine learning module for cloud migration, Ratnapuri fails to disclose multiple machine learning model and a pipeline of minibots.
However, Carroll disclose the use of multiple machine learning modules for cloud migration. See [0173].
Nguyen disclose pipeline module. See Fig. 1-108, [0033].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the single machine learning module to incorporate multiple modules of Carroll.
Given the fact that one can employ one or more machine learning modules (Carroll [0173]), pipeline-oriented optimization module (Nguyen [0033]) for cloud migration, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification with predictable result of the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: processing the description of the future state of the computing system using a first trained machine learning model to collect information; processing the information using a second trained machine learning model to generate an extracted and classified information data set; and processing the extracted and classified information data set using a third trained machine learning model to orchestrate a pipeline including a plurality of minibots.
10. Nguyen disclose The computer-implemented method of claim 9, further comprising: further training the first trained machine learning model, the second trained machine learning model or the third trained machine learning model using output of one or more of the plurality of minibots (see [0051]-[0052]).
11. Nguyen disclose The computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the pipeline including the plurality of minibots is arranged linearly or as a directed graph ([[0036]-[0038], 0058].
Claims 20-22 and 29-30 are system and non-transitory computer readable storage medium claims having similar limitation as of claims 9-11 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huang et al (US 20160142261 A1) disclose machine learning for cloud migration. See [0035] and abstract.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUT WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1123. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm EST.
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, Abdullah Al Kawsar can be reached at 5712703169. 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.
/LUT WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127
Prosecution Insights