DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-15, under Step 2A claims 1-15 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites a “ determining a run queue that includes two or more runs each having a prioritization parameter that indicates a first order in which the runs are to be executed (mental process of a person making an evaluation of a first ordering);
determining one or more run queue prioritization factors (mental process of a person making an evaluation of some additional factors);
These limitations, as drafted in such high level of generality, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind with aid of a computer (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.c). For example, as mapped by the examiner above, the various limitations in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing the limitations with the aid of a generic computer. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls with the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A (prong 2) and Step 2B claim 1 does contain additional elements of:
“method of managing workspace runs in an information technology (IT) infrastructure including one or more workspaces configured for maintaining configurations of API-manageable resources, the method comprising:
receiving a request to execute a run, the run including a plan of proposed changes to a configuration of API-manageable resources maintained by a workspace
in response to the request from the user to execute the 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”
However, when evaluated either individually or in combination, they do not integrate the above-mentioned abstract idea into practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the exception itself. In particular the additional element of “method of managing workspace runs in an information technology (IT) infrastructure including one or more workspaces configured for maintaining configurations of API-manageable resources, the method comprising” cited above are recited in high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computing environments containing one or more processes for execution) such that, either alone or in combination, it amounts to nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of “receiving a request to execute a run, the run including a plan of proposed changes to a configuration of API-manageable resources maintained by a workspace” are recited, in high level of generality (i.e. extra-solution activity of data gathering). The additional elements of “in response to the request from the user to execute the 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” are recited, in high level of generality (i.e. insignificant extra-solution activity of insignificant application of evaluation of prioritization factors). A such, either alone or in combination, they amount to nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception/abstract idea to a particular technological environment and insignificant extra solution activity and thus does not integrate the judicial exception/abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the judicial exception/abstract idea, identified above, is not integrated into a practical application nor does the claim include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception/abstract idea. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 6 as representative, claim 6 recites a “determining a run queue that includes two or more runs, the runs each including a plan of proposed changes to a configuration of API-manageable resources maintained by a workspace, each run in the run queue having a prioritization parameter that indicates a first order in which the runs are to be executed (mental process of a person making an evaluation of a first ordering);
determining one or more run queue prioritization factors (mental process of a person making an evaluation of some additional factors);
These limitations, as drafted in such high level of generality, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind with aid of a computer (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.c). For example, as mapped by the examiner above, the various limitations in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing the limitations with the aid of a generic computer. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls with the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A (prong 2) and Step 2B claim 1 does contain additional elements of:
“method of managing workspace runs in an information technology (IT) infrastructure including one or more workspaces configured for maintaining configurations of API-manageable resources, the method comprising:
receiving a request to prioritize the first order using the one or more run queue prioritization factors;
in response, generating a second order in which the runs in the run queue are to be executed; and retrieving a run for execution from the second run queue based on the second order”
However, when evaluated either individually or in combination, they do not integrate the above-mentioned abstract idea into practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the exception itself. In particular the additional element of “method of managing workspace runs in an information technology (IT) infrastructure including one or more workspaces configured for maintaining configurations of API-manageable resources, the method comprising” cited above are recited in high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computing environments containing one or more processes for execution) such that, either alone or in combination, it amounts to nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of “receiving a request to prioritize the first order using the one or more run queue prioritization factors” are recited, in high level of generality (i.e. extra-solution activity of data gathering). The additional elements of “in response, generating a second order in which the runs in the run queue are to be executed; and retrieving a run for execution from the second run queue based on the second order” are recited, in high level of generality (i.e. insignificant extra-solution activity of insignificant application of evaluation of prioritization factors). A such, either alone or in combination, they amount to nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception/abstract idea to a particular technological environment and insignificant extra solution activity and thus does not integrate the judicial exception/abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the judicial exception/abstract idea, identified above, is not integrated into a practical application nor does the claim include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception/abstract idea. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 11 as representative, claim 11 recites a “determining a run queue that includes two or more runs each including a plan of proposed changes to a configuration of API-manageable resources maintained by a workspace, each run having a prioritization parameter that indicates a first order in which the runs are to be executed (mental process of a person making an evaluation of a first ordering);
determining one or more run queue prioritization factors (mental process of a person making an evaluation of some additional factors);
These limitations, as drafted in such high level of generality, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind with aid of a computer (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.c). For example, as mapped by the examiner above, the various limitations in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing the limitations with the aid of a generic computer. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls with the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A (prong 2) and Step 2B claim 1 does contain additional elements of:
“method of managing workspace runs in an information technology (IT) infrastructure including one or more workspaces configured for maintaining configurations of API-manageable resources, the method comprising:
receiving, from a user, a modification to the one or more run queue prioritization factors;
in response to the modification, generating a second order by applying the one or more run queue prioritization factors to the first order of runs; and retrieving a run for execution from the run queue based on the second order.”
However, when evaluated either individually or in combination, they do not integrate the above-mentioned abstract idea into practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the exception itself. In particular the additional element of “method of managing workspace runs in an information technology (IT) infrastructure including one or more workspaces configured for maintaining configurations of API-manageable resources, the method comprising” cited above are recited in high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computing environments containing one or more processes for execution) such that, either alone or in combination, it amounts to nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of “receiving, from a user, a modification to the one or more run queue prioritization factors” are recited, in high level of generality (i.e. extra-solution activity of data gathering). The additional elements of “in response to the modification, generating a second order by applying the one or more run queue prioritization factors to the first order of runs; and retrieving a run for execution from the run queue based on the second order.” are recited, in high level of generality (i.e. insignificant extra-solution activity of insignificant application of evaluation of prioritization factors). A such, either alone or in combination, they amount to nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception/abstract idea to a particular technological environment and insignificant extra solution activity and thus does not integrate the judicial exception/abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself - see MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the judicial exception/abstract idea, identified above, is not integrated into a practical application nor does the claim include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception/abstract idea. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5 are also not patent eligible because they recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. As such, claims 2-5 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above. In particular, claims 2-5 merely provided recitations, in high level of generality, on some additional mental process considerations that a person is able perform with the aid of a generic computer (i.e. additional factors to be considered for mental evaluation/determination). For claims 2-5, there are no additional elements that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea of the parent claim. Accordingly, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these additional limitations cover performance of the limitation in the mind with physical aid, as a result, the claims falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 7-10 are reworded method versions of method claims 2-5 and they recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 2-5 such that similar step 2A (prong 1) analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Under step 2A (prong 2) and 2B, claims 7-10 recite additional elements. All of these additional elements have already been determined (please see analysis provided for claims 2-5 above) to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the abstract idea, identified above, is not integrated into a practical application in any of the claims, nor do the claims include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, these dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 12-15 are reworded method versions of method claims 2-5 and they recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 2-5 such that similar step 2A (prong 1) analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Under step 2A (prong 2) and 2B, claims 12-15 recite additional elements. All of these additional elements have already been determined (please see analysis provided for claims 2-5 above) to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the abstract idea, identified above, is not integrated into a practical application in any of the claims, nor do the claims include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, these dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The following claim languages lacks antecedent basis:
Claims 6 and 11: “the second run queue”.
The following claim languages are not clear and indefinite:
As per claim 1 it is not clear if the run that is part of the “request to execute a run” is already in the “run queue” or not.
As per claims 1, 6 and 11 it is not clear if what the “order” can be (e.g. each run has its own order of sequencing of configuration steps to be executed; or the run queue has a specific order in which the runs are executed in sequence from the run queue). Furthermore, it is not clear if there is just one “workspace” for which all the “runs” corresponds to; or is there a separate “workspace” for each separate “runs”.
The dependent claims do not cure the 112(b) issues of their respective parent claims. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as those presented for their respective parent claims.
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).
Lang reference has been previously cited in IDS.
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 having a prioritization parameter that indicates 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);
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 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).
Need does not explicitly teach that the runs are workspace runs 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 the runs are workspace runs 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 predetermined prioritization parameter for the 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 teaches reworded limitation of “receiving a request to prioritize the first order using the one or more run queue prioritization factors” ([0044], [0052], [0053] triggers for changing priorities can be activated).
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 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…” ( [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).
Conclusion
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