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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the limitations of a method of performing a data transfer comprising “determining…a disruptive event is to be performed…” and “determining…an optimal time window for the disruptive event to be performed” which are processes that can be perform in the mind. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper, therefore, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recite the following additional elements of “by an application management system” in performing various processes are recited so generically that they represent not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using or on a generic computing system and performing generic computer function. The “accessing…historical usage data …” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an application management system” in performing various processes are recited so generically that they represent not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using or on a generic computing system and performing generic computer function, and as to the “accessing…historical usage data …” the courts have identified mere data gathering as well-understood, routine and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
As to claims 2-5, 9-10 and 13-14, the claims recite additional/further defining the mental process of determining which are rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above.
Claim 6 do not recite any mental process, however, the additional elements recited in the claim merely described in generic terms the “disruptive event” thus are considered to merely apply the abstract idea which is neither a practical application under prong 2, or amount to significantly more under step 2B.
Claim 7 do not recite any mental process, however, the additional elements recited in the claim merely described in generic terms the “historical usage data” thus are considered to merely apply the abstract idea which is neither a practical application under prong 2, or amount to significantly more under step 2B.
As to claims 8 and 11, the claims recite additional data gathering/transmission, which are rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above.
As to claim 12, this claim does not recite any mental process, however, the additional elements recited in this claim initiate the performing of the disruptive event, which is considered to merely apply the abstract idea which is neither a practical application under prong 2, or amount to significantly more under step 2B.
Claim 15 do not recite any mental process, however, the additional elements recited in the claim merely described in generic terms the “disruptive event” thus are considered to merely apply the abstract idea which is neither a practical application under prong 2, or amount to significantly more under step 2B.
As to claim 16, this claim is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1 above. Additionally, the claims recite the additional element of “memories” and “processor(s)” which are merely generic computer components, thus is neither a practical application under prong 2, or amount to significantly more under step 2B.
As to claims 17-18, these claims are rejected for the same reason as claims 7-8 above.
As to claim 19, this claim is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1 above. Additionally, the claims recite the additional element of “computer-readable medium” and “processor(s)” which are merely generic computer components, thus is neither a practical application under prong 2, or amount to significantly more under step 2B.
As to claim 20, this claim is rejected for the same reason as claim 18 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2022/0391187 to Brooks Powell et al. (hereafter Powell).
As to claim 1, Powell teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a method comprising:
determining, by an application management system, that a disruptive event is to be performed with respect to an application on a computer system [determining a schedule or optimal time to perform software/application update(s), paragraph 10, lines 1-15; paragraph 11, lines 4-20; paragraphs 18, 23 and 31];
accessing, by the application management system and based on the determining the disruptive event, historical usage data representative of historical usage of resources associated with the application [used of historical data in determining an optimal time for performing the update, paragraph 18, lines 9-12; historical corpus based on performances and resource usage/requirement in performing various activities in the determination/prediction of optimal time, paragraph 30, lines 2-12]; and
determining, by the application management system and based on the historical usage data, an optimal time window for the disruptive event to be performed [predict an optimal time to initiate software update based in part on historical data, paragraphs 18, 23, 40 and 49; paragraph 30, lines 2-12, paragraph 31 lines 4-7].
Powell does not specifically teach the application being on a container system. However, application being on a container system or containerized application are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implement an application in known platforms, whether physical or virtual to extend the applicability of the update management system of Powell in achieving the predictable result of optimally updating software.
As to claim 2, Powell teaches the invention substantially as claimed including wherein the determining that the disruptive event is to be performed with respect to the application comprises determining an amount of resources to be allocated to the disruptive event [calculation of total amount of time or resources in completing software update including the time for completing pending activity as well as time require/allocated for actual software update in determining optimal time to schedule the activities and update, paragraph 49].
As to claim 3, Powell teaches the invention substantially as claimed including wherein the determining the amount of resources to be allocated is based on accessing historical usage data associated with analogous historical disruptive events [calculation of total amount of time or resources in completing software update including the time for completing pending activity based on historical analysis of similar tasks, as well as time require/allocated for actual software update in determining optimal time to schedule the activities and update, paragraph 49; paragraphs 18 and 45].
As to claim 4, Powell teaches the invention substantially as claimed including wherein the determining the amount of resources to be allocated is based on information received from the application [application communicate with update manager to transmit instructions to predict an estimated amount of time for update to complete, paragraph 15; paragraphs 24 and 49].
As to claim 5, Powell teaches the invention substantially as claimed including wherein the determining the amount of resources to be allocated is based on information received from a user of the application [requirement of user input in determining total time to complete task/update, paragraphs 40 and 49].
As to claim 6, Powell teaches the invention substantially as claimed including wherein the disruptive event comprises at least one of: a scaling up of the application, an upgrade of the application, an upgrade of a component associated with the application, a maintenance task on the application, or a maintenance task of a component associated with the application [application/software update(s), paragraph 10, lines 1-15].
As to claim 7, Powell does not specifically teach wherein the historical usage data comprises at least one of: input/output operations per second (IOPS) performed by the application, IOPS performed by a cluster in which the application is deployed, or IOPS performed with respect to a storage system associated with the application. However, Powell disclosed the application to be updated is embodied in a computing system utilizing clustered computers and components [paragraph 14, lines 18-24] and further disclosed the performance requirements of the device and/or application/software in building a historical corpus for determining an optimal time to perform an update [paragraphs 30-31]. Furthermore, IOPs as a measurement of performance is well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implement or apply any known metrics as a measurement of performance in Powell as an attribute in gauging performance or requirement in determining an optimal time in achieving the predictable result of optimally updating software.
As to claim 8, Powell teaches the invention substantially as claimed including wherein the accessing the historical usage data associated with the application comprises accessing a model based on the historical usage data that predicts future usage of resources [algorithms used in performing contextual analysis, paragraph 46; analysis determines order of performing pending activities before and after software updates, paragraphs 22 and 47].
As to claim 9, Powell teaches the invention substantially as claimed including wherein the determining the optimal time window is further based on a current usage of resources [current activities or resource usage in determining optimal time for update, paragraphs 18 and 30].
As to claim 10, Powell teaches the invention substantially as claimed including wherein the determining the optimal time window is further based on additional historical usage data representative of additional historical usage of resources by additional applications associated with the application management system [activities performed by other applications used in determining the optimal time for update, paragraphs 12, 18, 30 and 49].
As to claim 11, Powell teaches the invention substantially as claimed including further comprising providing information indicating the optimal time window for the performing of the disruptive event [notifying or communicating the optimal time for update, paragraphs 23 and 32-35].
As to claim 12, Powell teaches the invention substantially as claimed including further comprising automatically initiating, in the optimal time window, performing of the disruptive event [automatically initiate the task…initiate the update, paragraph 36, lines 15-17].
As to claim 13, Powell teaches the invention substantially as claimed including wherein the determining the optimal time window comprises determining that abstaining from performing the disruptive event is optimal [suggestions (i.e. not performing the update) when update cannot be performed in light of pending activities, paragraph 25].
As to claim 14, Powell teaches the invention substantially as claimed including wherein the determining the optimal time window is further based on determining an additional optimal time window for an additional disruptive event to be performed with respect to an additional application on the container system [update management system reusable for more than one or subsequent updates to different/additional software/applications, paragraph 10].
As to claim 15, Powell teaches the invention substantially as claimed including wherein the historical usage data further comprises historical usage of resources by other applications analogous to the application [activities performed by other applications as well as historical analysis of similar tasks performed by other applications are used in determining the optimal time for update, paragraphs 12, 18, 30 and 49].
As to claims 16-18, Powell teaches the method for scheduling disruptions substantially as claimed in claims 1 and 7-8, therefore Powell teaches the system for implementing the method.
As to claims 19-20, Powell teaches the method for scheduling disruptions substantially as claimed in claims 1 and 8, therefore Powell teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing computer instructions that, when executed, direct one or more processors of one or more computing devices to perform the method.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG Pub. 2005/0015641 disclosed devising an optimal backup schedule required to meet the desired QoS of application data availability [abstract; paragraph 79].
US Patent 9,185,188 disclosed determining an optimal time window for disruptive event(s) taking into consideration historic performance statistics and/or resource consumption [abstract; Figs. 3-5 and corresponding text]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QING YUAN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-3776. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 571-272-3759. 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.
/QING YUAN WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199