Detailed Action:
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I Claims 1-8 in the reply filed on March 04, 2026 is acknowledged.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is -directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-8 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Part I. 2A-prong one (Identify the Abstract Ideas)
The Alice framework, step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
Independent claims 1 is directed to identifying and labeling a hardware device not properly functioning in a workflow and generating a new workflow with regards to business policy and/or cost.
Under step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claimed invention in claim 1 is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
The above limitation falls within a mental process
Part II. 2A-prong two (additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application)
Under step 2A-Prong two (part 1 of Mayo test), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea. Such as, “… processing system…hardware device…storage device…operation system”
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) and as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., "receiving, processing, storing, transmitting/notifying/displaying/presenting data" (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Accordingly, these 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea with no significantly more elements.
As a result, Examiner asserts that claims 2-8 are similarly directed to the abstract idea. Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
Part III. Determine whether any Element, or Combination, Amounts to“Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea itself
The Alice framework, we turn to step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) to determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more" than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 1 does not include any limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, alone. Claim 1 does include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include“… processing system…hardware device…storage device…operation system”
these amounts to generic computing elements performing generic computing functions.
In addition, Fig. 1 of the Applicant’s specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method (i.e., commercially available processors). Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
The dependent claims of 2-8 further limit the abstract idea without adding significantly more. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Further, Examiner notes that the additional limitations, when considered as an ordered combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements individually.
Therefore, the dependent claims are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Brilliante et al.(US Pub. No. 2020/0065145) (Hereinafter, Brilliante).
As per claim 1,
Brilliante teaches,
A system, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
(Abstract)
tagging a hardware device of an operation system relative to a workload executable at the operation system, wherein the hardware device is employable to execute the workload at the operation system; and
(paragraph 38 and 47, noting on paragraph 38 the workload database identifies (i.e. tagging) hardware devices that is associated with the workload execution. This understanding is further evidenced on paragraph 47. Moreover, the identification functioning as tagging is given evidence by the Applicant’s Specification on paragraph 71.)
based on a performance indicator that corresponds to a change in status of the hardware device,
(paragraph 34, noting “…If any execution issue is detected in a (critical) execution step of the (critical) work unit, the analyzer at block 418 determines the corresponding candidate correction actions (according to the metadata of the critical work unit and to a correction authorization for the corrective actions). Particularly, the analyzer determines the types of correction actions that may be applied to the critical execution step and then selects the correction actions corresponding to the execution issue (for example, adding/reserving hardware execution resources when the hardware execution resources have fallen below the corresponding minimum values,”)
generating business impact data representative of a business impact corresponding to an effect of the change in the status of the hardware device on the execution of the workload
(paragraph 34 in its entirety and noting above notations)
As per claim 2,
Brilliante teaches,
the system of claim 1, wherein the business impact data comprises present impact data representative of a present impact of the change in the status of the hardware device and predicted impact data representative of a predicted impact of continued effect of the change in the status of the hardware device on the workload
(paragraph 34 noting above notations and all of paragraph 34).
As per claim 3,
Brilliante teaches,
the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
tagging the workload with a criticality level assigned to the workload, wherein the business impact data comprises predicted impact data representative of a predicted impact of failure to execute the workload based on the criticality level
(paragraphs 35-37, noting on paragraph 36 “…In response, the analyzer verifies whether the execution issue impacts (or it is likely to impact) the execution of (pending) work units of the second execution server. For example, a (further) execution issue is detected when an execution step of these work units depends on the first critical work unit…”)
As per claim 4,
Brilliante teaches
the system of claim 1, wherein the hardware device is a first hardware device, and wherein the operations further comprise:
grouping together, in a group, the first hardware device and a second hardware device, of the operation system, based on use of the first hardware device and the second hardware device for execution of the workload at the operation system; and
(paragraph 71, grouping together hardware devices)
applying a workload policy to the group based on a criticality level assigned to the workload.
(paragraph 71 & 72, read together; see also paragraph 29, noting “…The orchestrator 350 accesses (in read/write mode) the correction information repository 345, which in this case further stores the global correction information…”)
As per claim 5,
Brilliante teaches,
the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
determining a corrective action that addresses the change in the status of the hardware device or that addresses the effect of the change in the status of the hardware device on an execution of the workload
(paragraph 29, noting “…An orchestrator 350 (interfacing with the orchestrator of each other execution server 105) determines the correction actions for reducing, and possibly removing, the impact of any execution issue in the execution of the corresponding critical work units and causes application of the corrective actions onto the corresponding critical execution servers 105 (every time the execution server 105 acts as the promoted critical execution server thereof). For example, the correction actions may comprise adding/reserving execution resources, moving execution of one or more work units to one or more other execution servers 105, cancelling execution steps of the critical work units. …”)
As per claim 6,
Brilliante teaches,
the system of claim 5, wherein the corrective action comprises at least one of suggesting an action, ordering a part for the hardware device, applying a second hardware device of the operation system to the workload, or reducing power for the hardware device or for a third hardware device of the operation system
(paragraph 29, see claim 5 notations)
As per claim 7,
Brilliante teaches,
the system of claim 5, wherein the corrective action is based on at least one of a criticality level assigned to the workload or a monetary amount associated with the workload.
(paragraph 34, in its entirety and noting “… Particularly, the analyzer determines the types of correction actions that may be applied to the critical execution step and then selects the correction actions corresponding to the execution issue (for example, adding/reserving hardware execution resources when the hardware execution resources have fallen below the corresponding minimum values, cancelling the critical execution step of the critical work units, or moving execution of one or more work units to one or more other execution servers 105). Moreover, the analyzer measures the current values of the execution resources required by the critical execution step…”; wherein the “current values” functioning as “criticality level”)
As per claim 8,
Brilliante teaches,
the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
generating suggestion data representative of a proactive suggestion to perform a corrective action that facilitates maintaining execution of the workload prior to occurrence of a predicted failure of the execution of the workload due to a further change in the status of the hardware device
(paragraph 34, noting “…The monitor at block 416 verifies whether any execution issue has occurred, which execution issue impacts (or it is likely to impact) the execution of the work unit at the level of its execution steps (according to the corresponding metadata). For example, an execution issue is detected when an execution step is longer than the execution step's expected duration (for example, by estimating a progress of the execution step according to a ratio between a measured number of predetermined operations, such as processor cycles, performed by execution step and a total number of the same operations required to complete the execution step) or when any execution resources required by an execution step are not available (for example, when any hardware execution resources fall below minimum values of the execution resources, or any software execution resources are down). If any execution issue is detected in a (critical) execution step of the (critical) work unit, the analyzer at block 418 determines the corresponding candidate correction actions (according to the metadata of the critical work unit and to a correction authorization for the corrective actions)…”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAHRA ELKASSABGI whose telephone number is (571)270-7943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 11:30 to 8:00.
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, Rob Wu can be reached at 571.272.6045. 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.
ZAHRA . ELKASSABGI
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623