DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA and is in response to the amendments filed on 04/29/2026. Claims 1-15 are pending.
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, 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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 103 as being unpatentable over Need et al. (U.S. Pub. 2005/0108719) in view of Lang et al (U.S. Pat. 11223526).
Need and Lang references have been previously presented.
As per claim 1 Need teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a method of managing runs (jobs) in an information technology (IT) infrastructure ([0010], [0021], [0022] jobs are scheduled for execution in various computing system environments), the method comprising:
receiving a request to execute a run ([0042] a job has arrived);
determining a run queue that includes two or more runs each run of the two or more runs assigned a prioritization parameter that indicates a relative priority of the run in the run queue, thereby indicating a first order in which the runs are to be executed ([0041], [0043] each job of jobs in a queue has their corresponding priority, which are used to determine order of execution of the jobs; Fig. 7: jobs that arrives at different time are executed in a first order based on their relative priorities);
determining one or more run queue prioritization factors ([0044] jobs may have triggers associated that changes their priority); and
in response to the request from the user to execute the requested run, applying the one or more run queue prioritization factors to the first order to generate a second order from the first order, wherein the second order includes the requested run; and retrieving a run for execution from the run queue based on the second order ([0044], [0051]-[0053] when job A first arrives, it has priority eleven and is scheduled to execute last in the queue, but based on the triggers job A can be elevated to priority three thus allowing it to be executed earlier in execution order of jobs of the queue), such that generation of the second order causes a subsequently-queued run to execute ahead of earlier-queued runs based on the queue prioritization factors, thereby minimizing a run wait time for the subsequently-queued run (Figs. 7 and 8, [0053], [0042] job I which is queued at a later time increment then jobs E and H, is reprioritized to have priority six based on a trigger associated with process placing job I in the queue; after the reprioritization, job I will be executed before jobs E and H, thereby reducing the amount of time that job I will be waiting in the queue).
Need does not explicitly teach that a run is requested from a user, where the run is part of two or more runs are from one or more workspaces in an information technology (IT) infrastructure including one or more workspaces configured for maintaining configurations of API-manageable resources; and that the run including a plan of proposed changes to a configuration of API-manageable resources maintained by a workspace.
However Lang explicitly teaches that a run is requested from a user (col 7 lines 34-55, col 10 lines 15-23 runs of different configuration files are created by different users), where the run is part of two or more runs are from one or more workspaces in an information technology (IT) infrastructure including one or more workspaces configured for maintaining configurations of API-manageable resources (col 10 lines 15-23, col 1 lines 14-53, col 8 lines 33-49); and that the run including a plan of proposed changes to a configuration of API-manageable resources maintained by a workspace (col 8 lines 33-49 run is used to apply configuration of execution plan that includes modification of one or more resources at the information technology infrastructure).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the prior to the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Need and Lang because both are directed towards sequencing of execution of jobs in compute environments. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Lang into that of Need because Lang further improves performance sequencing of execution of jobs in compute environments by reducing inter-job related conflicts (col 1 line 56 – col 2 line 3).
As per claim 2 Need teaches wherein the one or more run queue prioritization factors includes one or more of a run type and a source of the run ([0041] each job is associated with a process to be executed, which is an identifier of a source that is to be executed; and priority or trigger defining an event which will require an action to be taken with the job within the queue, these are different types of type information).
As per claim 3 Need teaches wherein the one or more run queue prioritization factors includes a predetermined order including a first in first out order and a last in last out order ([0042], [0043] depending on priorities associated with jobs in queue, the earlier arriving jobs can be executed first, or the last arriving jobs can be executed first).
As per claim 4 Need wherein the one or more run queue prioritization factors includes a predetermined prioritization parameter for the requested run ([0044], [0052], [0053] triggers changes priorities of jobs).
As per claim 5 Need teaches wherein the predetermined prioritization parameter indicates that the run is first to be executed in the second order ([0044], [0052], [0053] changes in priorities of jobs in queue results in the jobs to be executed in a different order, for example Job F may be changed to have priority one and executed first).
As per claims 6-10, they are reworded versions of claims 1-5, and claim 6 does not teach “receiving a request to execute a run” of claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons, mutatis mutandis, as those presented for claims 1-5, respectively. In particular, Need as modified by Lang teaches reworded limitation of “receiving a request to prioritize the first order using the one or more run queue prioritization factors” (Need [0044], [0052], [0053] triggers for modify/change priorities can be activated; [0045], [0049], [0050] jobs in a queue can be manipulated by one skill in the art using different pseudo-code, including pseudo-code to trigger change of priorities of jobs in the queue; Lang col 11 lines 4-30 triggers can be established by a user).
As per claims 11-15, they are reworded versions of claims 1-5, and claim 11 does not teach “receiving a request to execute a run” of claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons, mutatis mutandis, as those presented for claims 1-5, respectively. In particular, Need as modified by Lang teaches reworded limitation of “receiving, from a user, a modification to the one or more run queue prioritization factors; in response to the modification, generating a second order…” ( Need [0044], [0052], [0053] triggers for modify/change priorities can be activated; [0045], [0049], [0050] jobs in a queue can be manipulated by one skill in the art using different pseudo-code, including pseudo-code to trigger change of priorities of jobs in the queue; Lang col 11 lines 4-30 triggers can be established by a user).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments Applicant's arguments for 35 U.S.C. 103 issues filed on 04/29/2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Response for arguments for 35 U.S.C. 103 issues:
With regard to applicant’s argument for claim 1 that:
" However, Need does not disclose or even suggest the concept of workspaces, or a "plan of proposed changes to a configuration," and no persistent state. Its "jobs" are merely transient computer tasks that execute immediately. As such, one of ordinary skill would understand that Need is in a fundamentally different technological space that does not include IT infrastructure provisioning.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, the examiner did not rely on Need to teach the “concept of workspaces, or a ‘ plan of proposed changes to a configuration,’” but instead Lang teaches these elements as pointed out in the previously presented mapping (col 7 lines 34-55, col 10 lines 15-23, col 1 lines 14-53, col 8 lines 33-49). Secondly, the jobs of Need does have persistent state, for example Job A is deferred until an event ([0042]), this means that jobs of Need can be persisted indefinitely until an event triggers and they are not executed immediately. Furthermore, nothing in the claims precludes the runs of the claims from being “transient computer tasks that execute immediately.” As such, under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), one of ordinary skill of computing art would understand that Need is not in a fundamentally different technological space.
With regard to applicant’s argument for claim 1 that:
" Need reorders via static priority tags and does not teach or suggest an existing ordered queue and applying user-supplied prioritization factors to generate a new order to the queue.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As the examiner has presented in the U.S.C. 103 section above in Figs. 7 and 8, [0053], [0042], [0044], [0045], [0049], [0050]-[0053]; of Need, it is taught that jobs in a queue can have an existing first order that can be changed based on trigger that are manipulated by one skill in the art. As such, Need explicitly teaches what the applicant has alleged that it does not teach, in applicant’s argument cited above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 BING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1745. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 6pm.
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, James Trujillo can be reached on (571) 272-3677. 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.
/BING ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights