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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the workflow-orchestration operation” in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, this has been interpreted as “the workflow-based orchestration operation.” Claims 2-20 depend on claim 1 or recite commensurate subject matter; therefore, they are rejected for the same reason.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See table below for rationale of rejection.
Claim 1:
Treated Under:
Explanation:
A computer-implementable method for performing a data center monitoring and management operation, comprising:
Step 1 – MPEP § 2106.03
The claim falls into a statutory category of subject matter.
creating a workflow-based orchestration operation;
Step 2A Prong 1 – MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)
A human operator could mentally create a workflow operation. Further, relying on “[a] computer-implementable method” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
launching the workflow-based orchestration operation;
Step 2A Prong 1 – MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)
A human operator could mentally launch a workflow operation or instruct another human operator to perform an operation. Further, relying on “[a] computer-implementable method” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
tracking the workflow-based orchestration operation;
Step 2A Prong 1 – MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)
A human operator could mentally track a mentally performed operation or another human operator performing the workflow operation. Further, relying on “[a] computer-implementable method” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
and, managing the workflow-based orchestration operation, the managing the workflow- based orchestration operation managing an implicit behavior associated with the workflow-orchestration operation.
Step 2A Prong 1 – MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)
A human operator could mentally manage the operation or physically manage another human operator’s performance of the workflow operation. Further, relying on “[a] computer-implementable method” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Regarding claim 2, it further defines the “implicit behavior;” however, a human operator could still mentally manage an implicit behavior that involves, for example, authorization. Accordingly, claim 2 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 3, further, relying on “a provisioning orchestration platform” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Accordingly, claim 3 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 4, further, relying on “a workflow engine, an execution engine and a provisioning management system” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Accordingly, claim 4 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 5, further, relying on “a runtime engine” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Accordingly, claim 5 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 6, it further defines the “generating insights;” however, a human operator could generate insights using mental processes. Accordingly, claim 6 is ineligible.
Regarding claims 7-18, they correspond to claims 1-6. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, further, relying on “a client system” and “a server system” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Accordingly, claim 19 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 20, it further recites providing instruction on-demand; however, a human operator could perform the mental processes on-demand. Accordingly, claim 20 is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 10,509,680) and further in view of Schincariol (US 2014/0074905).
Regarding claim 1, Kumar teaches: A computer-implementable method for performing a data center monitoring and management operation, comprising:
creating a workflow-based orchestration operation (col. 14:66-67 and col. 15:1-3, “At a block 304, the example workflow selector 206 uses the workflow identifier/name to identify a corresponding set of workflow tasks/steps, as well as information concerning the execution of the tasks, from the example workflow database 208”);
launching the workflow-based orchestration operation (col. 15:12-15, “The task selector 222 supplies the task(s) to the example task executor 218 which causes the task(s) to be executed at a block 310”);
tracking the workflow-based orchestration operation (col. 15:20-25, “At a block 312, the task executor 218 supplies information identifying the task status (e.g., successful, unsuccessful, partially successful, etc.) to the example first task status reporter/collector 216 which transmits the information to the second task status reporter/collector 224 of the status tracker 122a”); and
managing the workflow-based orchestration operation (col. 16:32-38, “If the task executor 218 is unable to successfully complete the first task as determined at the block 506, the task executor 218 (in addition to reporting the failed status to the example first task status collector/reporter 216) also attempts to re-execute (retry) the failed task and increments the task re-execution counter 221 to indicate that re-execution has been attempted”), the managing the workflow-based orchestration operation managing an implicit behavior associated with the workflow-orchestration operation (col. 5:1-4, “the management cluster performs non-production related operations for the virtual environment such as user-authentication, network security, network management, etc”).
Kumar does not teach as clearly as Schincariol teaches: the managing the workflow-based orchestration operation managing an implicit behavior associated with the workflow-orchestration operation (¶ 57, “Applications that tenants have deployed on a provisioned instance are owned by the tenants and could be anything for different purposes, e.g., providing custom access to their CRM instance; this can be provided through a service specific URL by tenant's customers, using, e.g., WebGate 314 for authentication and authorization”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of the managing the workflow-based orchestration operation managing an implicit behavior associated with the workflow-orchestration operation, as taught by Schincariol, in the same way to the managing a workflow, as taught by Kumar. Both inventions are in the field of managing workflows, and combining them would have predictably resulted in a method configured to “orchestrate operations between the cloud environment and the PaaS environment, e.g., by receiving a request from a tenant automation system, and coordinating the provisioning and deployment of virtual assemblies or applications,” as indicated by Schincariol (abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Kumar teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein: the implicit behavior associated with the workflow-orchestration operation comprises an implicit behavior for one or more of authorization, auditing, resource endpoints, credentials and crypto security secrets, connectivity (col. 5:1-4, “the management cluster performs non-production related operations for the virtual environment such as user-authentication, network security, network management, etc”).
Regarding claim 3, Kumar teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein: the managing is performed via a provisioning orchestration platform (col. 5:35-37, “The SDDC manager performs automated operations to provision, deploy and configure the workload domain based on the user-supplied specifications”).
Regarding claim 4, Kumar teaches: The method of claim 3, wherein: the provisioning orchestration platform comprises a workflow engine (col. 6:57-59, “The SDDC managers 118a, 118b, 118n each include a workflow engine 120a, 120b, 120n”), an execution engine (col. 6:16-18, “the task executor 218 may, upon successful (or unsuccessful) completion of the task, supply information identifying the task status”) and a provisioning management system (col. 5:35-37, “The SDDC manager performs automated operations to provision, deploy and configure the workload domain based on the user-supplied specifications”).
Regarding claim 5, Kumar teaches: The method of claim 4, wherein: the provisioning orchestration platform further comprises a runtime engine (col. 9:13-16, “the example monitor 230 continuously monitors the operational status of the example first server 114a on which the example SDDC manager 118a is operating”).
Regarding claim 6, Kumar teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating insights relating to the managing the workflow-based orchestration operation (col. 15:20-25, “At a block 312, the task executor 218 supplies information identifying the task status (e.g., successful, unsuccessful, partially successful, etc.) to the example first task status reporter/collector 216 which transmits the information to the second task status reporter/collector 224 of the status tracker 122a”).
Claims 7-18 recite commensurate subject matter as claims 1-6. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, Schincariol teaches: The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein: the computer executable instructions are provided by a service provider to a user on an on-demand basis (¶ 4, “The term "cloud computing" is generally used to describe a computing model which enables on-demand access to a shared pool of computing resources”).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar and Schincariol, as applied above, and further in view of Hall (US 9,208,122).
Regarding claim 19, Kumar and Schincariol do not teach; however, Hall discloses: the computer executable instructions are deployable to a client system from a server system at a remote location (col. 2:63-67, “To accomplish workflow management and processing via a client application, the client application may be in communication with one or more servers (e.g., an application server and/or a shared application platform server) storing workflows or workflow components”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of the computer executable instructions are deployable to a client system from a server system at a remote location, as taught by Hall, in the same way to the instructions, as taught by Kumar and Schincariol. Both inventions are in the field of workflow management, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “client integration for workflow management and processing,” as indicated by Hall (col. 2:56-57).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moroski (US 2018/0173561) discloses “executing the workflow of the cloud director and, in response to reaching the extensible phase, determining an execution order for at least one of the phase associations” (abstract), which relates to the disclosed managing the workflow-based orchestration operation.
Kukreja (US 11,245,682) discloses an “access token contains rule information including one or more constraints, each constraint corresponding to a condition for granting or denying access to the protected resource” (abstract), which relates to the disclosed implicit behavior associated with a workflow operation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB D DASCOMB whose telephone number is (571)272-9993. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/JACOB D DASCOMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198