DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 11/25/25.
The Examiner is respectfully maintaining the 35 U.S.C 101 Rejections with details noted below.
35 U.S.C 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 Abstract idea is, determining, by a data center module, a priority level, performance metrics, data center infrastructure, a snapshot, prediction of disaster recovery resources based on priority level and the performance metrics, wherein the disaster recovery resource comprise a computing resource and networking resource, sending by the data center module the priority level, the performance metrics, the data center infrastructure information, and the snapshot to the cloud module, assigning, by the cloud module, disaster recovery resources to obtain assigned disaster recover resources based on the priority level, the performance metrics, the data center infrastructure information and the prediction. Further, wherein the cloud module is configured to activate the assigned disaster recovery resources by determining that the data center has experienced a failure by determining that expected heartbeat signal was not received,
identifying and establishing a connection with a replication site: deploying the snapshot by downloading and sending to the replication site, determining, by the data center module, an updated priority level for at least one application associated with the data center, and sending an activation signal to the disaster recovery resources whereby the disaster recovery resources will enable the switch from a standby mode to active mode and initiates applicates using the snapshot, determining, by the data center module, updated performance metrics, generating a second prediction of the disaster recovery resources based on the updated priority level and the updated performance metrics; and updating, by the cloud module, the assigned disaster recovery resources based on the second prediction. Thus, the Examiner points out that these steps merely gather information by a data center, on data center module, a priority level, performance metrics, data center infrastructure, a snapshot, prediction of disaster recovery resources based on priority level and the performance metrics. For, example determining that the data center has experienced a failure by determining that expected heartbeat signal was not received and sending an activation signal to the disaster recovery resources whereby the disaster recovery resources will enable the switch from a standby mode to active mode and initiates applicates using the snapshot. However, there is no concrete result or any real world result in the sense that the data center may fail if no heartbeat signal is received but there is no further action taken to rectify the issue, and merely receiving or not receiving a heartbeat signal is not necessarily more or give the claim patentable weight. The same can be said for sending an activation signal to the disaster recovery resources whereby the disaster recovery resources will enable the switch from a standby mode to active mode and initiates applications using the snapshot, however enabling switch to the active mode and initiating applications using the snapshot is still lacking the real world result, in the sense that enabling to an active mode or initiates applications using the snapshot is lacking details merely initiates applications using the snapshot is not necessarily more either. Further, sending by the data center module the priority level, the performance metrics, the data center infrastructure information, and the snapshot to the cloud module, assigning, by the cloud module, disaster recovery resources to obtain assigned disaster recover resources based on the priority level, the performance metrics, the data center infrastructure information and the prediction does not significantly amount to something more either for example, merely sending information such as performance metrics, priority level or data center infrastructure to the cloud module, wherein the cloud module may assign disaster recovery resources does not make the claim significantly more in the sense that a prediction may be given of the disaster recovery resources, however it is not concrete and there is no real world result. Also merely having computing resource and a networking resource does not necessarily make the claims significant more, unless it can be shown what are the specific functions of the resources and how a technology can be improved. Further, wherein the cloud module is configured to activate the assigned disaster recovery resources by identifying and establishing a connection with a replication site: deploying the snapshot to the replication site, determining, by the data center module, an updated priority level for at least one application associated with the data center, and sending an activation signal to the disaster recovery resources, determining, by the data center module, updated performance metrics, generating a second prediction of the disaster recovery resources based on the updated priority level and the updated performance metrics; and updating, by the cloud module, the assigned disaster recovery resources based on the second prediction are also mere predictions to activate disaster recovery based on snapshot, updated priority level, updated performance metrics, however there is nothing concrete here nor is there any tangible real world result. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites data center module, disaster recovery resource, computing resource, networking resource, replication site and cloud module. However, based on the specification, there is no specific structure for these units or modules, nor are they clearly defined. The data center module, disaster recovery resource, computing resource, networking resource, replication site and cloud module are merely used as generic tools to perform the abstract idea, and are cited at a high-level of generality.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 data center module, disaster recovery resource, computing resource, networking resource, replication site and cloud module amounts to no more than using generic components or units within a data center to apply the exception using the generic components or units. Merely using generic components or units within a data center to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 9 and 15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The same or similar reasoning is given as applied above for claim 1.
The Dependent claims 2-3, 5-9, 11-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter as they fail to remedy the independent claims.
Or
Please cancel the previous Abstract and replace it with the following rewritten abstract.
If the abstract is being substantially rewritten, submit a new abstract in clean text (no markings) accompanied by an instruction for the cancellation of the previous abstract.
Amendments to the Drawings:
The attached sheets of drawings include changes to Figures . These sheets, which include Figures , replace the original sheets including Figures .
Attachment: Replacement Sheets
Any replacement drawing sheet including amended figures must include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet (i.e., if the previous drawing sheet included Figures 1 and 2, but you've only amended figure 1, the Replacement Sheet of drawings should still include Figures 1 and 2). "Replacement Sheet" must be identified in the top, center margins, as such. If submitted, annotated sheets must be identified in the top center margin as "Annotated Sheet Showing Changes."
Or
Please cancel the previous Abstract and replace it with the following rewritten abstract.
If the abstract is being substantially rewritten, submit a new abstract in clean text (no markings) accompanied by an instruction for the cancellation of the previous abstract.
Amendments to the Drawings:
The attached sheets of drawings include changes to Figures . These sheets, which include Figures , replace the original sheets including Figures .
Attachment: Replacement Sheets
Any replacement drawing sheet including amended figures must include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet (i.e., if the previous drawing sheet included Figures 1 and 2, but you've only amended figure 1, the Replacement Sheet of drawings should still include Figures 1 and 2). "Replacement Sheet" must be identified in the top, center margins, as such. If submitted, annotated sheets must be identified in the top center margin as "Annotated Sheet Showing Changes."
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Enam Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1729. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Albert Decady, can be reached on 571-272-3819.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ENAM AHMED/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2112 1/10/26
/ESAW T ABRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112