DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (Argument 1; Remarks pg. 9 lines 16-17) that the claim limitations do not recite an abstract idea mental process, (Argument 2; Remarks pg. 10 lines 36-39) the claims provide a technological improvement that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application
With respect to applicant’s arguments examiner respectfully disagrees. As to argument 1, while the claim does have elements directed to a computer implemented method for managing automation of scripts not ever element of a claim has to be directed to an abstract idea mental process for the claim as a whole to be considered as directed to an abstract idea as long as the other additional elements are viewed as one that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not show significantly more than the abstract idea. In amended claim 1 the limitations directed to analyzing a script, resolving/identifying dependences of the script based on analysis, evaluating a set of defined schedules associated with the script, selecting one or more schedules, selecting an optimal machine are all elements that are viewed as abstract idea mental process as claims and viewed as being able to mentally perform an analysis on script, schedules to select/determine specific schedules and machine for use. Where at the level claimed the ability to evaluate script and schedules information is something that a person could mentally do with the provided information based on observation and analysis of data of the script and schedules where it is also noted that the claims do not recite that creation of an autonomous behavior plan but the selection a schedule/plan from a defined set for use. A claim that is generally linked to a computer/technical field of use as additional elements are not ones that can show that a claim is not directed to an abstract idea mental process.
As to argument 2, while additional elements that show a technical improvement/solution to a technical problem can be used to show that claims are not directed to an abstract idea but integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are significantly more than the abstract idea not any type of improvement is seen as a technical improvement and simply stating that the claims include/recite a technical improvement/solution to a technical problem is not enough support to overcome the abstract idea. To show an improvement the specification must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claim inventions as pertaining to an improvement in technology and the claims must reflect the improvement in technology such that the claim covers a particular solution to a problem as opposed to merely claiming the idea of the solution. Where the claims here are directed to the idea of a solution/improvement in this case. As stated above and seen in the full analysis below the analyzing the script, resolving script analysis, evaluating defined schedules associated with automation of scripts, selecting a schedule and selecting an optimal machine steps are viewed as abstract idea mental process as the level claimed and thus not additional elements that can show a technical solution/improvement to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements dealing with synchronizing the schedule with availability and capacity of selected machine and automatically installing the runtime environment and resources for the automation of the script based on synchronization are viewed as additional element where the elements at the level of detail recited are additional elements akin to “apply it” type additional element that fail to meaningful limit the claim as it does not require any particular application of the recited synchronizing, as the claim does not specify how/what type of synchronizing is performed and how/if availability and capacity of the machine are determine with real time tracking of those variables and insignificant extra solution activity elements with installing element, with full detailed analysis of the claimed elements seen below in the 101 rejection. that do not show a technical improvement/solution to a technical problem and thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application thus viewed that the claims do not show a particular solution to a particular problem and thus viewed as still being directed to an abstract idea mental process.
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 1: Claims 1-20 are claims that are directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 8 and 15: The limitation of “analyzing …a script uploaded to a centralized script manager by a user to identify a runtime environment for the script and a set of library resources required for successful script execution,” “resolving… a set of dependencies for the script based on the analysis,” “evaluating … defined schedules associated with automation of the script to determine frequency and timing of the script execution based on the set of library resources and the set of dependencies,” “selecting … one or more schedules from the defined schedules,” “selecting… an optimal machine on a centralized server for the automation of the script based on the selected one or more schedules, the runtime environment and the set of dependencies” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 8 and 15: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the following additional element “a script orchestrator engine,” “ a centralized script manager,” “an optimal machine on a centralized server,” “A computing system for managing heterogeneous automation scripts, comprising: a processor; a memory device coupled to the processor; and a computer readable storage device coupled to the processor, wherein the storage device contains program code executable by the processor via the memory device to implement a method, the method comprising,” and “A computer program product for managing heterogeneous automation scripts, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage device, and program instructions stored on the computer readable storage device, to cause a processor to perform operations comprising” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the claims recite additional elements of “automatically installing the runtime environment and the set of library resources for the automation of the script on the optimal machine based on the synchronization” which does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely storing information which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Additionally, the additional limitation “synchronizing the selected one or more schedules with availability and capacity of the optimal machine” fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “synchronizing,” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 8 and 15: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements of “a script orchestrator engine,” “ a centralized script manager,” “an optimal machine on a centralized server,” “A computing system for managing heterogeneous automation scripts, comprising: a processor; a memory device coupled to the processor; and a computer readable storage device coupled to the processor, wherein the storage device contains program code executable by the processor via the memory device to implement a method, the method comprising,” and “A computer program product for managing heterogeneous automation scripts, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage device, and program instructions stored on the computer readable storage device, to cause a processor to perform operations comprising” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Further, the addition elements of “automatically installing the runtime environment and the set of library resources for the automation of the script on the optimal machine based on the synchronization” which is merely insignificant extra-solution activity information. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity” i. storing and retrieving information in memory where the installing limitation is akin to storing/loading/installing the data/information. Furthermore, the limitation “synchronizing the selected one or more schedules with availability and capacity of the optimal machine” does not require any particular application of the recited evaluation and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely storing data, and instructions that merely add equivalent of apply it do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims 1, 8 and 15 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 2, 9 and 16 they recite additional elements of “presenting a suggestion for the optimal machine” and “receiving, by the script orchestrator engine, a response to accept the suggestion“ which are merely insignificant extra-solution activity information of receiving or transmitting data and presenting offers which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity” i. receiving or transmitting data over a network and ii. displaying offers and gathering statistics where the presenting a suggestion limitation is akin to receiving or transmitting and presenting data/suggestion and the receiving a response limitation is akin to receiving data. Moreover, claims 2, 9 and 16 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 2, 9 and 16 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 2, 9 and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 3, 10 and 17 they recite additional elements of “establishing, by the script orchestrator engine, a process to execute the script on the optimal machine based on the response“ which fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “establishing” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, claims 3, 10 and 17 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 3, 10 and 17 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 3, 10 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 4, 11 and 18 they recite additional elements of “employing, by the script orchestrator engine, an application programming interface to manage a set of agents that execute a plurality of automation scripts on a client machine“ which fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “employing” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, claims 4, 11 and 18 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 4, 11 and 18 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 4, 11 and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 5, 12 and 19 they recite additional elements of “providing, by the script orchestrator engine, a downloadable framework that enables the user to create a new library“ which is merely insignificant extra-solution activity information of receiving or transmitting data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity” i. receiving or transmitting data over a network where the providing a downloadable framework limitation is akin to receiving/transmitting/providing the data. Moreover, claims 5, 12 and 19 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 5, 12 and 19 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 5, 12 and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 6, 13 and 20 they recite additional elements of “wherein the analysis of the script is performed by the script orchestrator engine based on a file extension of the script and library imports to automatically resolve the set of dependencies for the script “ which is merely a field of use/technological environment which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, claims 6, 13 and 20 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 6, 13 and 20 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 6, 13 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 7 and 14 they recite additional elements of “executing, by an agent among the set of agents, the script based on a predefined condition “ which fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “executing” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, claims 7 and 14 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 7 and 14 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 7 and 14 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are viewed as allowable subject matter over the prior art and once the outstanding 101 rejection of the claims is addressed the claims would be allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The combination of elements recited in the independent claim dealing with the specifics of the analysis of the script to identifying runtime environment and library resources and further determining set of dependencies of the script and evaluation of a plurality of schedules associated with the automation of the script to determine both frequency and timing of the script based on the determine set of library resources and set of dependencies and using the determined schedule, runtime environment and set of dependencies to select an optimal machine for automation of the script and the synchronizing the schedule with availability and capacity of the selected machine and automatically install the determine runtime environment, set of library resources based on the synchronizing. While prior art such as Hollands shows analyzing a script to determine information to selecting an optimal machine where requirements for the script are installed, and prior art of Shaastry shows additional script analysis to determine dependencies and prior art of Piazza et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0033237 A1) [0009] showing the basics of evaluations of plurality of schedules to select specific one for task execution in light of resources however the specific combination of the claimed limitation dealing with the analysis of the script to identifying runtime environment and library resources and further determining set of dependencies of the script and evaluation of a plurality of schedules associated with the automation of the script to determine both frequency and timing of the script based on the determine set of library resources and set of dependencies and using the determined schedule, runtime environment and set of dependencies to select an optimal machine for automation of the script and the synchronizing the schedule with availability and capacity of the selected machine and automatically install the determine runtime environment, set of library resources based on the synchronizing is not seen in the prior art and viewed as being allowable subject matter over prior art.
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
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 BRADFORD F WHEATON whose telephone number is (571)270-1779. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/BRADFORD F WHEATON/Examiner, Art Unit 2193