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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/10/2023 was filed before the mailing of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-9, 11-19, and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-10 recite a system (i.e. machine), claims 11-20 recite a non-transitory machine-readable medium (i.e. machine or article of manufacture), and claims 21-30 recite a method (i.e. process). Therefore claims 1-30 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 21 recite the limitations of comparing a cloud resource configuration state with a cloud resource target configuration; generating an updated cloud resource configuration specification based on a difference between the cloud resource configuration stating and the cloud resource target configuration; and causing an update of a cloud resource configuration parameter in a cloud provider based on the updated cloud resource configuration specification. The invention and claims are drawn towards managing cloud resource configurations so that it is less complicated for providers and users that manage the configurations, and the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions or behaviors, following rules or instructions) as evidenced by the claim limitations detailing steps in updating cloud recourse configurations based on the configuration specification after the results of a comparison so that it is less complicated for providers and users that manage the configurations. The claims also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as evidenced by limitations detailing the observation and evaluation of data (resource configuration states) and making a decision (judgment/opinion) based on the observed and evaluated data (e.g., updating of a cloud resource configuration parameter in a cloud provider based on the observed updated cloud resource configuration specification). The claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: interface circuitry (claim 1), programmable circuitry, a non-transitory machine-readable medium (claim 11) and. The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Note: Claim 21 recites no additional elements to evaluate under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Dependent claims 8, 18, and 28 recite the limitation of causing a [cloud automation platform] to select parameter settings to update in the cloud resource configuration specification. The claim is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional element of a cloud automation platform, the programmable circuitry (claim 8), and a non-transitory machine-readable medium (claim 18). The additional elements amount to “apply it" or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 9, 19, and 29 recite the limitation of causing transmission of the updated cloud resource configuration specification to a [container orchestration platform server]. The claim is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional element of a container orchestration platform server, the programmable circuitry (claim 8), and a non-transitory machine-readable medium (claim 18). The additional elements amount to “apply it" or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 12-17, and 22-27 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above and/or additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 2-7, 12-17, and 22-27 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 10, 20, and 30 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, 11, 14-19, 21, and 24-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Collins (2021/0111949).
Claim 1: A system comprising:
interface circuitry; machine-readable instructions; and programmable circuitry to at least one of execute or instantiate the machine-readable instructions to: (Collins ¶0076 disclosing features described can be implemented in digital electronic circuitry, or in computer hardware, firmware, software, or in combinations of them; apparatus can be implemented in a computer program product tangibly embodied in an information carrier, e.g., in a machine-readable storage device, for execution by a programmable processor; and method steps can be performed by a programmable processor executing a program of instructions to perform functions of the described implementations by operating on input data and generating output; ¶0072 processor is capable of processing instructions stored in the memory or on the storage device to display graphical information for a user interface on the input/output device)
compare a cloud resource configuration state with a cloud resource target configuration; (Collins ¶0040 state processor generates differentiation data 106 based on comparing the present state configuration data and the desired state configuration data)
generate an updated cloud resource configuration specification based on a difference between the cloud resource configuration state and the cloud resource target configuration; and (Collins ¶0040 differentiation data identifies, for instances, a differences in respective configurations specified by the present state configuration data and the desired state configuration data 104B; e.g., if the desired state configuration data identifies the creation of a new instance of a cloud computing resource (which does not exist within the present state configuration data), then the differentiation data can identify configuration information associated with the new instance; ¶0041 configuration processor generates workflow representation data 108 based on differentiation data and workflow data; workflow representation data specifies a hierarchical arrangement of tasks and operations for implementing a configuration procedure associated with the desired state configuration data)
cause an update of a cloud resource configuration parameter in a cloud provider based on the updated cloud resource configuration specification. (Collins ¶0042 workflow representation data specifies a first level within the hierarchical arrangement as a sequence of three tasks, such as “delete an existing instance of virtual PC A,” “create a new instance of virtual PC A,” and “transition instances.”; the execution of these tasks coincides with a configuration procedure that, for instances, adjusts a virtual PC to operate with different hardware platforms requiring transitioning of an existing instance; ¶0043 workflow representation data can be used to orchestrate the creation and management of a cloud computing resources; ¶0044 configuration processor provides the workflow representation data to the computing device, which is used by the computing device to provide the interface for output; see also ¶0046 and ¶0047)
Claims 11 and 21: Claims 11 and 21 are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable and method, respectively. Claims 11 and 21 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1, which is directed towards a system. Claims 11 and 21 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1. Furthermore, claim 11 recites:
(Claim 11): A non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instruction to cause programmable circuitry to: (Collins ¶0076 disclosing the apparatus can be implemented in a computer program product tangibly embodied in an information carrier, e.g., in a machine-readable storage device, for execution by a programmable processor; and method steps can be performed by a programmable processor executing a program of instructions to perform functions; features can be implemented advantageously in one or more computer programs that are executable on a programmable system including at least one programmable processor coupled to receive data and instructions from, and to transmit data and instructions)
Claim 4: The system of claim 1, wherein the programmable circuitry is to detect a trigger event from the cloud provider, the trigger event caused by a change in the cloud resource configuration state. (Collins ¶0022 and Figs. 4A-4B FIG. 4A illustrates an example of code that can be used to identify state changes of a cloud computing resource. FIG. 4B illustrates an example of code that can be used to detect attribute-level changes to a cloud computing resource that is supported by cloud-based resources; ¶0058 code that can be used to detect attribute-level changes to a cloud computing resource that is supported by cloud-based resources is depicted; e.g., the code enables the configuration state processor to detect attribute level changes to a cloud computing resource when supported by a cloud computing service; see also ¶0057 code identifying changes of a cloud computing resource; ¶0030 information or data that is collected and/or processed instantaneously with minimal delay after the occurrence of a specified event, condition, or trigger. For instance, “real-time data” refers to data, e.g., configuration data, that is processed with minimal delay after a computing device collects or senses the data, e.g., through a user interface)
Claim 5: The system of claim 4, wherein the trigger event is to cause the programmable circuitry to at least one of 1) create the cloud resource configuration parameter, 2) update the cloud resource configuration state, or 3) ignore the trigger event if there is no difference between the cloud resource configuration state and the cloud resource target configuration. (Collins ¶0030 information or data that is collected and/or processed instantaneously with minimal delay after the occurrence of a specified event, condition, or trigger. For instance, “real-time data” refers to data, e.g., configuration data, that is processed with minimal delay after a computing device collects or senses the data, e.g., through a user interface; ¶0032 configuration procedures include, without limitation, deleting an existing instance of a cloud computing resource, creating a new instance of a cloud computing resource, replacing instances of cloud computing resources with limited or no downtime, or modifying a configuration associated with an existing instance of a cloud computing resource; ¶0034 generate representations of differences between a present state configuration of a cloud computing resource and a desired state configuration of the cloud computing resource; in some instances state processor will list all new resources that are to be created, or in updating existing infrastructure, the state processor will list all resources have are being updated, and the new updated configurations of each resource; ¶0012 for each of the tasks: a set of one or more operations to be performed during execution of a particular task; and one or more execution parameters associated with each of the operations included in the set of one or more operations)
Claims 15 and 25: Claims 15 and 25 are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable and method, respectively. Claims 15 and 25 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 5, which is directed towards a system. Claims 15 and 25 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 5.
Claim 6: The system of claim 1, wherein the cloud resource configuration state is associated with current parameter settings. (Collins ¶0045 configuration procedure depicted in FIG. 2 involves three transitions representing the execution of tasks necessary to configure a cloud computing resource from a current configuration an adjusted configuration; ¶0046 a first transition involves generating a dynamic configuration for a cloud computing resource based on its current configuration)
Claim 7: The system of claim 6, wherein the current parameter settings include at least one of a specification parameter, a status parameter, or an event parameter. (Collins ¶0022 code that can be used to detect attribute-level changes to a cloud computing resource that is supported by cloud-based resources; ¶0030 formation or data that is collected and/or processed instantaneously with minimal delay after the occurrence of a specified event, condition, or trigger; ¶0058)
Claims 17 and 27: Claims 17 and 27 are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable and method, respectively. Claims 17 and 27 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 7, which is directed towards a system. Claims 17 and 27 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 7.
Claim 8: The system of claim 1, wherein the programmable circuitry is to cause a cloud automation platform to select parameter settings to update in the cloud resource configuration specification. (Collins ¶0035 disclosing the previously generated workflow representations can be used to automate the creation of a workflow representation for a subsequent configuration procedure to be executed; ¶0037 a configuration procedure that involves migrating an existing instance of a virtual computer between different hardware platforms; the configuration procedure involves three tasks—(1) deleting an existing instance on an outdated hardware platform, (2) creating a new instance on a new hardware platform, and (3) transitioning configuration data associated with the existing instance to be associated with the newly created instance; ¶0039 the desired state configuration data 104B can indicate the creation of a new instance of the “virtual PC A” (e.g., transition from an existing instance to be terminated and a new instance to be created), a modification to an existing instance, (e.g., a new gateway), or deletion of the existing instance; ¶0032 examples of configuration procedures include, without limitation, deleting an existing instance of a cloud computing resource, creating a new instance of a cloud computing resource, replacing instances of cloud computing resources with limited or no downtime, or modifying a configuration associated with an existing instance of a cloud computing resource; ¶0045 the configuration procedure can involve, for instance, loading a cloud computing resource, replacing a cloud computing resource, deleting a cloud computing resource, creating a new cloud computing resource, modifying an existing cloud computing resource; ¶0058-¶0059 disclosing detecting attribute-level changes to a cloud computing resource that is supported by cloud-based resources, and identifying three adjustments to the cloud computing resource—(1) updating a “Project” tag of the virtual machine instance “vpc” to “Gyro,”, (2)adjusting a present configuration of an associated internet gateway, (3) adjusting a present configuration of the subnet zones)
Claims 18 and 28: Claims 18 and 28 are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable and method, respectively. Claims 18 and 28 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 8, which is directed towards a system. Claims 18 and 28 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 8.
Claim 9: The system of claim 1, wherein the programmable circuitry is to cause transmission of the updated cloud resource configuration specification to a container orchestration platform server. (Collins ¶0003 cloud computing capabilities often enable the execution of application package interfaces (APIs) to create, update, or delete cloud computing resources through, for instance, a cloud service provider; cloud computing APIs provide various advantages, such as cross-platform compatibility, component integration over a cloud environment (e.g., databases, messaging systems, portals, storage components), enable enterprise software features, and/or provide control and/or distribution over cloud-based infrastructure; ¶0049 the system can automatically distribute incoming application traffic across multiple targets, such as virtual server instances, containers; ¶0031 a configuration server that exchange communications over a network; configuration server and the cloud computing resource can optionally be associated with a cloud computing server; computing device includes a state processor and a configuration processor; computing device can also store workflow data, which can be used in configuring the cloud computing resources; ¶0032 managing cloud infrastructure associated with the cloud computing server; configuration procedures include, without limitation, deleting an existing instance of a cloud computing resource, creating a new instance of a cloud computing resource, replacing instances of cloud computing resources with limited or no downtime, or modifying a configuration associated with an existing instance of a cloud computing resource; ¶0034 the desired state configuration can be one that is specified within a configuration file for a process for replacing a virtual machine between two physical servers; the configuration procedure involves updating existing infrastructure, the state processor will list all resources have are being updated, and the new updated configurations of each resource)
Claims 19 and 29: Claims 19 and 29 are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable and method, respectively. Claims 19 and 29 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 9, which is directed towards a system. Claims 19 and 29 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 9.
Claim 14: The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the instructions are to cause the programmable circuitry to compare the cloud resource configuration state to the cloud resource target configuration after detecting a trigger event from the cloud provider, the trigger event caused by a change in the cloud resource configuration state. (Collins ¶0022 and Figs. 4A-4B FIG. 4A illustrates an example of code that can be used to identify state changes of a cloud computing resource. FIG. 4B illustrates an example of code that can be used to detect attribute-level changes to a cloud computing resource that is supported by cloud-based resources; ¶0058 code that can be used to detect attribute-level changes to a cloud computing resource that is supported by cloud-based resources is depicted; e.g., the code enables the configuration state processor to detect attribute level changes to a cloud computing resource when supported by a cloud computing service; see also ¶0057 code identifying changes of a cloud computing resource; ¶0030 information or data that is collected and/or processed instantaneously with minimal delay after the occurrence of a specified event, condition, or trigger. For instance, “real-time data” refers to data, e.g., configuration data, that is processed with minimal delay after a computing device collects or senses the data, e.g., through a user interface)
Claim 16: The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the cloud resource configuration state includes current parameter settings. (Collins ¶0045 configuration procedure depicted in FIG. 2 involves three transitions representing the execution of tasks necessary to configure a cloud computing resource from a current configuration an adjusted configuration; ¶0046 a first transition involves generating a dynamic configuration for a cloud computing resource based on its current configuration)
Claim 24: The method of claim 21, further including comparing the cloud resource configuration state to the cloud resource target configuration after detecting a trigger event from the cloud provider, the trigger event caused by a change in the cloud resource configuration state. (Collins ¶0022 and Figs. 4A-4B FIG. 4A illustrates an example of code that can be used to identify state changes of a cloud computing resource. FIG. 4B illustrates an example of code that can be used to detect attribute-level changes to a cloud computing resource that is supported by cloud-based resources; ¶0058 code that can be used to detect attribute-level changes to a cloud computing resource that is supported by cloud-based resources is depicted; e.g., the code enables the configuration state processor to detect attribute level changes to a cloud computing resource when supported by a cloud computing service; see also ¶0057 code identifying changes of a cloud computing resource; ¶0030 information or data that is collected and/or processed instantaneously with minimal delay after the occurrence of a specified event, condition, or trigger. For instance, “real-time data” refers to data, e.g., configuration data, that is processed with minimal delay after a computing device collects or senses the data, e.g., through a user interface)
Claim 26: The method of claim 21, wherein the cloud resource configuration state includes current parameter settings. (Collins ¶0045 configuration procedure depicted in FIG. 2 involves three transitions representing the execution of tasks necessary to configure a cloud computing resource from a current configuration an adjusted configuration; ¶0046 a first transition involves generating a dynamic configuration for a cloud computing resource based on its current configuration)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 12, 13, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (2021/0111949) in view of Cois (2024/0231918).
Claim 2: The system of claim 1,
wherein the programmable circuitry is to request the cloud resource configuration state.
Collins discloses determining the cloud resource configuration state, but does not explicitly disclose that the programmable circuitry is to request the cloud resource configuration state. Cois suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Cois ¶0033 disclosing the manifest may be determined by querying the current configuration state of the cloud resource). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Collins to include the programmable circuitry is to request the cloud resource configuration state as taught by Cois since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately; one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 12 and 22: Claims 12 and 22 are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable and method, respectively. Claims 12 and 22 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 2, which is directed towards a system. Claims 12 and 22 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2.
Claim 3: The system of claim 1,
wherein the programmable circuitry is to poll for the cloud resource configuration state.
Collins discloses determining the cloud resource configuration state, but does not explicitly disclose that the programmable circuitry is to poll for the cloud resource configuration state. Cois suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Cois ¶0033 disclosing the manifest may be determined by querying the current configuration state of the cloud resource). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Collins to include the programmable circuitry is to poll for the cloud resource configuration state as taught by Cois since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately; one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 13: The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the instructions are to cause the programmable circuitry to
compare the cloud resource configuration state to the cloud resource target configuration after polling for the cloud resource configuration state.
Collins discloses determining the cloud resource configuration state, but does not explicitly disclose compare the cloud resource configuration state to the cloud resource target configuration after polling for the cloud resource configuration state. Cois suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Cois ¶0033 disclosing the manifest may be determined by querying the current configuration state of the cloud resource; the system can be compared to determine whether there are any difference and further make a determination as to whether any of the differences need to be reconciled or updated). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Collins to include comparing the cloud resource configuration state to the cloud resource target configuration after polling for the cloud resource configuration state as taught by Cois since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately; one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 23: Claim 23 are directed to a method. Claim 23 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 13, which is directed towards a non-transitory machine-readable medium. Claim 23 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 13.
Claim(s) 10, 20, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (2021/0111949) in view of Genis (2025/0004856).
Claim 10: The system of claim 1,
wherein a request for the cloud resource configuration state causes the programmable circuitry to convert cloud resource configuration information from the cloud provider to the cloud resource configuration state, the cloud resource configuration information in a cloud-provider-specific format, the cloud resource configuration state in a cloud-provider-agnostic format.
Collins discloses determining the cloud configuration state, but does not explicitly disclose that a request for the cloud resource configuration state causes the programmable circuitry to convert cloud resource configuration information from the cloud provider to the cloud resource configuration state, the cloud resource configuration information in a cloud-provider-specific format, the cloud resource configuration state in a cloud-provider-agnostic format. Genis suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Genis ¶0032 IaC tool provides a way to define and manage infrastructure resources across different cloud providers using code, offering a unified approach to infrastructure management in multi-cloud or hybrid cloud environments. Some examples of IaC tools used in the cloud computing industry include Terraform, AWS CloudFormation, Azure Resource Manager, Google Cloud Deployment Manager, Helm Charts, Pulumi, CrossPlane, and the like; ¶0036 to generate a fix, the current state of a cloud resource is converted into an intermediate representation (e.g., JSON format) that includes language constructs of a declarative or programming language utilized by an IaC tool that apply the fix; then, the intermediate representation is converted or compiled into a declarative or programming language utilized by an IaC tool; if the IaC tool is Terraform, the intermediate representation is a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format, and the declarative language is the Terraform language; ¶0043 the state of each cloud resource in the first list is converted to an intermediate representation compliant with an IaC tool; if the second list includes information retrieved from Terraform, the states designated in the first list are converted into a JSON format which is the intermediate representation compliant with Terraform; see also ¶0057). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Collins to include that a request for the cloud resource configuration state causes the programmable circuitry to convert cloud resource configuration information from the cloud provider to the cloud resource configuration state, the cloud resource configuration information in a cloud-provider-specific format, the cloud resource configuration state in a cloud-provider-agnostic format as taught by Genis since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately; one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 20 and 30: Claims 20 and 30 are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable and method, respectively. Claims 20 and 30 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 10, which is directed towards a system. Claims 20 and 30 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628