DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 14, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitations “one or more components” should be change to -- one or more hardware components --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Step One
Claims 1 - 7 are directed to a method. Claims 8 – 14 are directed to a system with structural components. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 15 - 20 recites a “computer-readable storage medium” that stores software performing a function. The Specification fails to expressly limit the recited “medium” to a statutory embodiment. Thus, the plain and ordinary meaning of the recited "media" includes signals, carrier waves, etc. Accordingly, the recited “computer-readable storage medium” are not a process, a machine, a manufacture or a composition of matter, and the claims fail to recite statutory subject matter as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101.
As to claim 1,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
determining one or more hardware components capable of performing a selection of features for an undeveloped device application;
determining one or more providers that offer the one or more hardware components;
generating a package for each of the one or more providers, the package
comprising the one or more hardware components; and
generating a provider configuration capable of running the undeveloped device application on the one or more hardware components.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, (1) A human can determine one or more hardware components by selecting a hardware component from a list of hardware components that performs anomaly detection (performing a selection of features). (2) From said list of hardware components a human can read (determine) that the hardware components are manufactured by one or more companies (one or more providers). (3) A human, from said list, can group (package) different hardware components from the same company (provider) that will be able to perform all the features (i.e. anomaly detection, proximity sensing, etc) of the undeveloped device application (4) A human can generate a list of functions using a pencil and paper capable of running the undeveloped device application
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
The hardware system and the hardware components amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception
The hardware system and the hardware components amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 2,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
determining one or more hardware components is responsive to a selection of features for the undeveloped device application
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, A human can determine one or more hardware components by selecting a hardware component from a list of hardware components that performs anomaly detection or selecting a hardware component from the list of hardware components that performs proximity sensing (determining one or more hardware components is responsive to a selection of features).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 3,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
determining the one or more hardware components is further responsive to a selection of an amount of concurrent users for the undeveloped device application.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a human office manager can determine (select) hardware components based on a majority vote of ten employees (selection of an amount of concurrent users).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 4,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the same abstract idea identified in claim 2 above.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
determining the one or more hardware components comprises using a machine learned prediction algorithm that is trained on historical data
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
determining the one or more hardware components comprises using a machine learned prediction algorithm that is trained on historical data
which is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
As to claims 5,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
determining a resource cost for the hardware configuration
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a human can determine cost of the hardware configuration adding up the price of each hardware component (package) capable of performing the selected features.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 6,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
generating a machine-readable specification comprising one or more components for the device application
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a machine-readable specification is a formatted digital document outlining an application's purpose, features, technical requirements, and design. A human, using a generic computer, can generate an Excel-structured CSV file outlining the technical requirements of each and every hardware component.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 7,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
wherein generating each package comprises optimizing each package based on a resource cost of the package.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a human can determine cost of the hardware configuration adding up the price of each hardware component (package) capable of performing the selected features. From the cost, human can determine the package with the lowest cost as being optimal. Humans have been determining the cost and optimization before computers where even invented.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
Claim 8 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The claim recites the additional elements of a processor and a memory that are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 9 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 10 has similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 11 has similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 12 has similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 13 has similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 14 has similar limitations as claim 7. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 15 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The claim recites the additional elements a computer readable storage medium, a computer, and hardware components are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 16 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 17 has similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 18 has similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 19 has similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 20 has similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6, 8 – 11, 13, 15 – 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KATHIRESAN et al (US 2020/0175395).
As to claim 1, KATHIRESAN et al teaches a method for determining a hardware system to run an undeveloped device application (paragraph [0002]… a method may comprise receiving priority data identifying one or more priorities that may be relevant to a configuration of a software application and receiving feature data identifying one or more features related to the one or more priorities), the method comprising:
determining one or more hardware components capable of performing a selection of features for an undeveloped device application (paragraph [0071]… the architecture design platform may update the reference architecture based on the user de-selecting a technology service. For example, the architecture design platform may receive, from the smart board, data identifying a technology service that has been de-selected based on the user removing a smart block from the smart board. In this case, when the smart block is removed from a slot of the smart board, the sensor associated with the slot may detect that the smart block has been removed, which may allow the smart board to provide the architecture design platform with the data identifying the technology service that has been de-selected. This may allow the architecture design platform to perform one or more actions described herein to update the reference architecture (e.g., by updating one or more of the scores, updating a value to remove the technology service from a corresponding tier of the reference architecture, and/or the like ; paragraph [0144]…process 600 may comprise identifying a set of technology services to include in a reference architecture that is to be used to select at least one cloud service provider to support the application, wherein the set of technology services are identified based on the one or more priorities and the one or more features (block 630). For example, the architecture design platform (e.g., using computing resource 235, processor 320, memory 330, storage component 340, and/or the like) may identify a set of technology services to include in a reference architecture that is to be used to select at least one cloud service provider to support the application, as described above) (Examiner’s Note: “the architecture design platform may identify a set of technology services to include in a reference architecture buy selecting/deselecting smart block on a smart board” reads on “determining one or more hardware components capable of performing” ; “the one or more priorities and the one or more features” reads on “a selection of features” ; “configuration of a software application” reads on “an undeveloped device application”)
determining one or more providers that offer the one or more hardware
components (paragraph [0144]… the architecture design platform (e.g., using computing resource 235, processor 320, memory 330, storage component 340, and/or the like) may identify a set of technology services to include in a reference architecture that is to be used to select at least one cloud service provider to support the application, as described above ; paragraph [0150]…the architecture design platform) may update a set of scores associated with the reference architecture based on the one or more selected technology services, as described above. In some implementations, a subset of the set of scores may be updated to reflect one or more degrees to which one or more cloud service providers offer the one or more selected technology services) (Examiner’s Note: “reference architecture that is to be used to select at least one cloud service provider” reads on “ determining one or more providers” ; “one or more cloud service providers offer the one or more selected technology services” reads on “offer the one or more hardware components”);
generating a package for each of the one or more providers, the package
comprising the one or more hardware components (paragraph [0051]… fields identifying particular cloud service providers, a field for selecting a cloud service provider, fields identifying the one or more features that have been selected, fields identifying the one or more priorities that have been selected, fields representing a group of architecture tiers (shown in FIG. 1D as four boxes labeled as an edge tier, a platform tier, an enterprise tier, and a public tier), and/or the like. The architecture tiers may provide a logical way to segment technology services. For example, in the architecture tiers shown, the tiers may segment technology services based on a location of a device that is to host or support the technology services (e.g., a monitoring service may be hosted on a device located at an edge of a network and thus may be placed into the edge tier). The architecture tiers shown are provided by way of example. In practice, any number of architecture tiers, different types of architecture tiers, and/or the like, may be used within the reference architecture) (Examiner’s Note: “the architecture tiers may provide a logical way to segment technology services.” reads on “ generating a package for each of the one or more providers”); and
generating a provider configuration capable of running the undeveloped device
application on the one or more hardware components (paragraph [0047]… [0047] To identify the set of technology services, the architecture design platform may provide the priority data and the feature data as input to the data model, to cause the data model to output a set of relevancy scores indicating a degree to which particular technology services are relevant to the reference architecture, to the one or more priorities and features, to solving the problem, and/or the like. Additionally, the architecture design platform may determine that a subset of the set of relevancy scores, which are associated with the set of technology services, satisfy a threshold confidence level. This may allow the architecture design platform to identify the set of technology services) (Examiner’s Note: “to cause the data model to output a set of relevancy scores indicating a degree to which particular technology services are relevant to the reference architecture” reads on “generating a provider configuration capable of running the undeveloped device application”).
As to claim 2, KATHIRESAN et al teaches the method, wherein determining one or more hardware components is responsive to a selection of features for the undeveloped device application (paragraph [0144]…process 600 may comprise identifying a set of technology services to include in a reference architecture that is to be used to select at least one cloud service provider to support the application, wherein the set of technology services are identified based on the one or more priorities and the one or more features (block 630) (Examiner’s Note: “the set of technology services are identified based on the one or more priorities and the one or more features” reads on “determining one or more hardware components is responsive to a selection of features for the undeveloped device application”).
As to claim 3, KATHIRESAN et al teaches the method, wherein determining one or more hardware components is further responsive to a selection of an amount of concurrent users for the undeveloped device application (paragraph [0017]…The term “brainstorming session,” as used herein, may refer to a group of individuals (e.g., employees and/or contractors of an organization) that have been given a problem to solve and that are to collaborate to identify a software-based solution (e.g., referred to herein as the application) to the problem. The brainstorming session may occur in one location, in multiple locations, at a particular time period; paragraph [0019]… [0019] As shown in FIG. 1A, and by reference number 102, a user may interact with an interface of the reference architecture development tool (e.g., an application interface, a web interface, etc.) to select an industry that relates to the problem that is to be discussed during the brainstorming session) (Examiner’s Note: “select an industry that relates to the problem that is to be discussed during the brainstorming session” reads on “a selection of an amount of concurrent users”).
As to claim 4, KATHIRESAN et al teaches the method, wherein determining the one or more hardware components comprises using a machine learned prediction algorithm that is trained on historical data (paragraph [0066]…the architecture design platform may have trained a data model (or may have received a trained data model) that is able to use a machine learning technique to determine relations between selected priorities and/or features and selected technology services. The data model may have been trained using indicator values that identify trends, correlations, relationships, key performance indicator (KPI) values, and/or the like, between historical priorities and features and particular technology services) (Examiner’s Note: “a data model that is able to use a machine learning technique” reads on “machine learned prediction algorithm”).
As to claim 6, KATHIRESAN et al teaches the method, further comprising generating a machine-readable specification comprising one or more components for the device application (paragraph [0049]… the architecture design platform may use machine learning to identify a specific type of stream analytics that would be relevant for the reference architecture)(Examiner’s Note: Under broadest reasonable interpretation, a “machine-readable specification” is digital, structured information that computers can process automatically without human intervention. Therefore, “a specific type of stream analytics” read on “a machine-readable specification,” as stream analytics data is highly machine-readable. It is specifically designed to be continuously processed and analyzed in real-time by computer systems rather than directly by humans).
Claim 8 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 9 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 10 has similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 11 has similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 13 has similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 15 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 16 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 17 has similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 18 has similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 20 has similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
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.
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) 5, 7, 12, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KATHIRESAN et al (US 2020/0175395) in view of Hayward (US 9,891,984).
As to claim 5, KATHIRESAN et al teaches the hardware configuration.
KATHIRESAN et al fails to explicitly show/teach determining a resource cost for the hardware configuration.
However, Hayward teaches determining a resource cost for the hardware configuration (column 6, lines 1 – 25… he integrated computing system configuration template 120 generally refers to one of multiple standardized integrated computing system product configurations that may be provided by an integrated computing system provider. For example, an integrated computing system provider may offer multiple standardized integrated computing system product configurations (e.g., models) in which each standardized integrated computing system product configuration is optimized for providing certain services based upon its costs. Whereas one standardized integrated computing system product configuration may be optimized for its networking throughput, another standardized integrated computing system product configuration may be optimized for its compute capabilities, while yet another standardized integrated computing system product configuration may be optimized for its storage capabilities. The integrated computing system configuration application 104 provides for selection of a particular integrated computing system configuration template 120 from among multiple integrated computing system configuration templates 120, and configures the selected integrated computing system configuration template 120 to add additional components 112, remove certain components 112, or replace certain components 112 such that a customized integrated computing system configuration may be implemented that is optimally customized according to the user's needs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, for KATHIRESAN et al to determine a resource cost for the hardware configuration, as in in Hayward, for the purpose of optimizing for providing certain services based on cost.
As to claim 7, Hayward teaches generating each package comprises optimizing each package based on a resource cost of the package (column 6, lines 1 – 25… he integrated computing system configuration template 120 generally refers to one of multiple standardized integrated computing system product configurations that may be provided by an integrated computing system provider. For example, an integrated computing system provider may offer multiple standardized integrated computing system product configurations (e.g., models) in which each standardized integrated computing system product configuration is optimized for providing certain services based upon its costs. Whereas one standardized integrated computing system product configuration may be optimized for its networking throughput, another standardized integrated computing system product configuration may be optimized for its compute capabilities, while yet another standardized integrated computing system product configuration may be optimized for its storage capabilities. The integrated computing system configuration application 104 provides for selection of a particular integrated computing system configuration template 120 from among multiple integrated computing system configuration templates 120, and configures the selected integrated computing system configuration template 120 to add additional components 112, remove certain components 112, or replace certain components 112 such that a customized integrated computing system configuration may be implemented that is optimally customized according to the user's needs)(Examiner’s Note: “standardized integrated computing system product configuration is optimized for providing certain services based upon its costs” reads on “generate each package comprises optimizing each package based on a resource cost of the package”).
It would have been obvious to generate each package comprises optimizing each package based on a resource cost of the package, for the same reasons as above.
Claim 12 has similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 14 has similar limitations as claim 7. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 19 has similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's Off).
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, Omar Fernandez can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128