DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
As to claims 17 and 19-20, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), the analysis proceeds as follows for independent claim 17:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory category?
Claim 17 recites a method, and the claim falls under the statutory category of a Process.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – a mental process and/or mathematical concepts.
Claim 17 recites providing a customer-specific compliance parameter (information gathering), and inferring an API combination that results in the highest compliance result among alternatives (comparison based on a criterion), and a notifying the customer. This resembles the classic example of collect, analyze/compare, select, report workflow (Electric Power Group, LLC v Alstrom, S.A. and/or Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen EDEC) that can be performed mentally/conceptually and is treated as an abstract idea (mental process/data analysis).
In addition, “using a trained model” to infer which option provides the “highest compliance result” reasonably reads as using a mathematical relationship/model to generate a selection, which is also within the mathematical concepts grouping of an abstract idea.
Based on claim 17 containing an abstract idea (mental process and/or mathematical concept), a judicial exception is recited.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
NO
Additional elements beyond the abstract ideas are found to be an orchestrator, analyzer, API combinations, VDI environment, and a notification.
These additional elements beyond the abstract idea do not integrate into a practical application because the claim does not recite a specific technological improvement to VDI, virtualization, API execution, or compliance testing. In addition, “VDI” and “API combination” function mainly as a field-of-use/environment for applying the selection idea. Finally, the last step is notification “about a VDI environment that is generated…,” but the claim does not positively recite how the environment is generated or a technical mechanism that ties the model to a concrete technical operation beyond generic orchestration.
Therefore, claim 17 is read as applying an abstract selection/optimization to VDI management using generic components, which is not considered to integrate into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
NO.
Even if it was found that the additional elements were to be integrated to a practical application in Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements only amount to generic computing roles (orchestrator/analyzer), generic ML invocation (trained model without any constraints or details), selecting among options (API combinations), and post-solution activity (notification).
These are the types of well-understood, routine, conventional in the field that are not considered to add “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
RESULT:
Therefore, claim 17 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As to claims dependent claims 19-20, they are dependent on rejected claim 17 and also failing to cure its deficiencies.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Instant claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,876,689 B1, respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as shown in independent claims 1, 10, and 17, they only differ in that the claims 1, 10, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,876,689 B1 utilizes the terms “service level agreement,” “SLA,” or “SLA adherence,” whereas the instant claims uses the term “compliance” as illustrated below in the following table:
CLAIM
INSTANT APPLICATION
US 11,876,689 B2
1
A method for managing virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) environments, the method comprising:
obtaining, by an orchestrator, a resource related parameter (RRP) for a resource and a compliance related parameter from a database;
assembling, by the orchestrator, an application programming interface (API) combination to generate a VDI environment based on a plurality of vendor-provided APIs;
testing, by the orchestrator and for a compliance result, the VDI environment across a range of users based on the RRP and the compliance related parameter, wherein the compliance result is stored in the database;
providing, by the orchestrator, the range of users and the VDI environment to an analyzer, wherein the analyzer is instructed by the orchestrator to generate a model that maximizes the compliance result of the VDI environment;
generating, by the analyzer, a trained model by training the model using at least the range of users, the VDI environment, the compliance related parameter, the RRP, and the compliance result, wherein the RRP, the compliance related parameter, and the compliance result are obtained from the database;
providing, by the orchestrator, a customer-specific compliance related parameter to the analyzer, wherein the customer-specific compliance related parameter is received from a customer;
inferring, by the analyzer and using the trained model, a second API combination that provides the highest compliance result among a plurality of API combinations based on the customer-specific compliance related parameter, wherein the plurality of API combinations comprises at least the API combination and the second API combination; and
initiating, by the orchestrator, deployment of a second VDI environment that is generated based on the second API combination, wherein the second API combination is received from the analyzer.
A method for managing virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) environments, the method comprising:
obtaining, by an orchestrator, a resource related parameter (RRP) for a resource and a service level agreement (SLA) related parameter from a database;
assembling, by the orchestrator, an application programming interface (API) combination to generate a VDI environment based on a plurality of vendor-provided APIs;
testing, by the orchestrator and for an SLA adherence result, the VDI environment across a range of users based on the RRP and the SLA related parameter, wherein the SLA adherence result is stored in the database;
providing, by the orchestrator, the range of users and the VDI environment to an analyzer, wherein the analyzer is instructed by the orchestrator to generate a model that maximizes the SLA adherence result of the VDI environment;
generating, by the analyzer, a trained model by training the model using at least the range of users, the VDI environment, the SLA related parameter, the RRP, and the SLA adherence result, wherein the RRP, the SLA related parameter, and the SLA adherence result are obtained from the database;
providing, by the orchestrator, a customer-specific SLA related parameter to the analyzer, wherein the customer-specific SLA related parameter is received from a customer;
inferring, by the analyzer and using the trained model, a second API combination that provides the highest SLA adherence result among a plurality of API combinations based on the customer-specific SLA related parameter, wherein the plurality of API combinations comprises at least the API combination and the second API combination; and
initiating, by the orchestrator, deployment of a second VDI environment that is generated based on the second API combination, wherein the second API combination is received from the analyzer.
10
A method for managing virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) environments, the method comprising:
obtaining, by an orchestrator, a resource related parameter (RRP) for a resource and a compliance related parameter from a database;
assembling, by the orchestrator, an application programming interface (API) combination to generate a VDI environment based on a plurality of vendor-provided APIs;
testing, by the orchestrator and for a compliance result, the VDI environment across a range of users based on the RRP and the compliance related parameter, wherein the compliance result is stored in the database;
providing, by the orchestrator, the range of users and the VDI environment to an analyzer, wherein the analyzer is instructed by the orchestrator to generate a model that maximizes the compliance result of the VDI environment;
generating, by the analyzer, a trained model by training the model using at least the range of users, the VDI environment, the compliance related parameter, the RRP, and the compliance result, wherein the RRP, the compliance related parameter, and the compliance result are obtained from the database; and
initiating, by the analyzer, notification of an administrator about the trained model.
A method for managing virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) environments, the method comprising:
obtaining, by an orchestrator, a resource related parameter (RRP) for a resource and a service level agreement (SLA) related parameter from a database;
assembling, by the orchestrator, an application programming interface (API) combination to generate a VDI environment based on a plurality of vendor-provided APIs;
testing, by the orchestrator and for an SLA adherence result, the VDI environment across a range of users based on the RRP and the SLA related parameter, wherein the SLA adherence result is stored in the database;
providing, by the orchestrator, the range of users and the VDI environment to an analyzer, wherein the analyzer is instructed by the orchestrator to generate a model that maximizes the SLA adherence result of the VDI environment;
generating, by the analyzer, a trained model by training the model using at least the range of users, the VDI environment, the SLA related parameter, the RRP, and the SLA adherence result, wherein the RRP, the SLA related parameter, and the SLA adherence result are obtained from the database; and
initiating, by the analyzer, notification of an administrator about the trained model.
17
17. A method for managing virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) environments, the method comprising:
providing, by an orchestrator, a customer-specific compliance related parameter to an analyzer, wherein the customer-specific compliance related parameter is received from a customer;
inferring, by the analyzer and using a trained model, an application programming interface (API) combination that provides the highest compliance result among a plurality of API combinations based on the customer-specific compliance related parameter, wherein the plurality of API combinations comprises at least the API combination and a second API combination; and
initiating, by the orchestrator, notification of the customer about a VDI environment that is generated based on the API combination, wherein the API combination is received from the analyzer.
17. A method for managing virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) environments, the method comprising:
providing, by an orchestrator, a customer-specific service level agreement (SLA) related parameter to an analyzer, wherein the customer-specific SLA related parameter is received from a customer;
inferring, by the analyzer and using a trained model, an application programming interface (API) combination that provides the highest SLA adherence result among a plurality of API combinations based on the customer-specific SLA related parameter, wherein the plurality of API combinations comprises at least the API combination and a second API combination; and
initiating, by the orchestrator, notification of the customer about a VDI environment that is generated based on the API combination, wherein the API combination is received from the analyzer.
The substitution of a “compliance-related parameter” and “compliance result” in the instant claims for the “SLA related parameter” and “SLA adherence result” recited in U.S. Patent No. 11,876,689 B1 represents an obvious variation. All of these types of data are well-known, result-oriented constraints used to evaluate, compare, and optimize virtual desktop infrastructure environments, and both are applied in the same manner with an identical system and method.
In addition, instant dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 contain the same limitations as dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,876,689 B1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over prior art, and the application would be in condition for allowance upon overcoming rejections to non-statutory double patenting and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Independent claims 1, 10 and 17, the prior cited art fails to disclose in the context of the claimed invention:
As recited by Independent claims 1 and 10 - “testing, by the orchestrator and for a compliance result, the VDI environment across a range of users based on the RRP and the compliance related parameter, wherein the compliance result is stored in the database; providing, by the orchestrator, the range of users and the VDI environment to an analyzer, wherein the analyzer is instructed by the orchestrator to generate a model that maximizes the compliance result of the VDI environment; generating, by the analyzer, a trained model by training the model using at least the range of users, the VDI environment, the compliance related parameter, the RRP, and the compliance result, wherein the RRP, the compliance related parameter, and the compliance result are obtained from the database” as recited by Independent claims 1 and 10.
As recited by Independent claim 17, “inferring, by the analyzer and using the trained model, a second API combination that provides the highest compliance result among a plurality of API combinations based on the customer-specific compliance related parameter, wherein the plurality of API combinations comprises at least the API combination and the second API combination; and initiating, by the orchestrator, notification of the customer about a second VDI environment that is generated based on the second API combination, wherein the second API combination is received from the analyzer”.
The closest prior art of record found includes Reed (US 2022/0360600 A1), Ravi (US 2014/0026131 A1), Pateromichelakis (US 2024/0193021 A1), and Zhou (US 2022/0182439 A1):
Reed discloses a cloud-based data platform that analyzes customer-specific data associated with virtual machines and other compute assets to perform compliance monitoring services. Reed teaches analyzers that determine, based on the compute asset data, a condition associated with the one or more compute assets, including machine learning techniques to evaluate and model customer environments, and orchestration components that act on analyzer outputs to perform management actions and provide notification to the customer. Reed further states that the system supports virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) monitoring.
Ravi teaches receiving customer-specified regulatory compliance requirements and mapping those requirements to predetermined configuration of a virtual compliance platform, followed by provisioning cloud infrastructure and deploying a compliance monitor to monitor and log compliance.
Pateromichelakis discloses a middleware operating in a virtualized cloud platform that forms bundled or combined APIs or Slice APIs by mapping multiple platform-dependent, vendor-provided APIs into a unified API based on received service parameters. There is further teaching of selecting and publishing such combined APIs to meet customer-specific requirements and providing notifications or alerts to consuming entities in response to configuration or event changes.
Zhou discloses an API processing server and resource selector controller that receive user-defined APIs and custom resource definitions, parse selection criteria, and generate APIs (Endpoints and EndpointSlice APIs) to manage virtual machines and other virtualized resources, with notifications issued upon updates.
However, none of these prior art or the other cited prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests the limitations as arranged in independent claims 1, 10, and 17 when considered as a whole. Therefore, claims 1, 10, and 17 are allowable.
When taken in context the claim as a whole was not uncovered in the prior art, the dependent claims are allowed as they depend upon allowable independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Berson (US 2024/0378054 A1)
Tiwari et al. (US 2024/0241707 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH TANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 571-272-3338. 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.
/KENNETH TANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197