DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This Office Action is in response to application filed on January 18, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 9-10 and 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-3, 9-10 and 16-17 contain abbreviations API, DevOps, GUI and/or IT. It is recommended that the first instance of the abbreviation be spelled out such as “application program interface (API)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-3, 7, 9-10, 14, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 2-3 and 7 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of machines; Claims 9-10 and 14 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture and Claims 16-17 and 20 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 2, 9 and 16: The limitation “determine that the user command is an API command of a DevOps user”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate a user command and mentally determine, with or without the use of pen and paper, that the user command is an API command of a DevOps user.
Claims 3, 10 and 17: The limitation “determine that the user command is a GUI command of an IT user”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate a user command and mentally determine, with or without the use of pen and paper, that the user command is a GUI command of an IT user.
Claims 7, 14 and 20: The limitation “create, modify or delete one or more configuration files used to parameterize an infrastructure-as-code computing platform”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate infrastructure-as-code computing platform and mentally create, modify or delete, with or without the use of pen and paper, one or more configuration files used to parameterize the infrastructure-as-code computing platform.
Therefore, Yes, claims 2-3, 7, 9-10, 14, 16-17 and 20 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 2-3, 7, 9-10, 14, 16-17 and 20: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements –“one or more processors; one or more electronic networks; and
a memory having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to”, “A non-transitory, computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer- executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a computer to:…”, “A computer-implemented method” and “process, via the one or more processors, the user command, wherein the processing causes one or more cloud functions to be performed affecting the state of at least one of the cloud environments” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claim 2-3, 7, 9-10, 14, 16-17 and 20 recite the following additional elements – “receive, via the one or more electronic networks, a user command with respect to one or both of (i) accessing at least one of the cloud environments, and (ii) visualizing at least one of the cloud environments” and “transmit, via the one or more electronic networks, a status code based on the processing of the user command” which are merely recitations of insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and will also be addressed below in Step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 2-3, 7, 9-10, 14, 16-17 and 20 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 2-3, 7, 9-10, 14, 16-17 and 20: 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 abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components and mere instructions to apply an exception which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, the recitations of insignificant data gathering activity as also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “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, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 2-3, 7, 9-10, 14, 16-17 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Elimelech (US 2023/0132877).
With respect to Claim 1, Elimelech discloses:
one or more processors; (see Figure 6A and 6B; Computer system 600 may be the same or similar to client 111 or compute node(s) 154 of FIG. 1, and may include one or more processors and one or more memory devices, Paragraphs 64-65)
one or more electronic networks; (see Figure 1; network 105)
and a memory having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: (see Figure 6A and 6B; Computer system 600 may be the same or similar to client 111 or compute node(s) 154 of FIG. 1, and may include one or more processors and one or more memory devices, Paragraphs 64-65)
receive, via the one or more electronic networks, a user command with respect to one or both of (i) accessing at least one of the cloud environments, and (ii) visualizing at least one of the cloud environments; (see Figure 2A; The containerized cluster user interface can include a Graphical User Interface (“GUI”), which can display a “wizard” or other step-by-step sequence of forms in which the user can input configuration values. Each form may include one or more fields, each of which can have a descriptive label and an input component such as a text box or a selection list: for example, a GUI can include a wizard that creates a virtual machine in the containerized cluster. The GUI can display menus listing operations that can be performed by the containerized cluster. The user can select a menu item, such a “Create Virtual Machine,” (user command/accessing at least one of the cloud environments) and in response, the GUI can present a form that includes fields corresponding to the input parameters of the containerized cluster's Create Virtual Machine operation, Paragraph 16; The containerized cluster(s) 150 on which the container computing platform runs may be accessible via a network such as the Internet, and may be provided as cloud services. Thus, the cluster entities 156 may execute in a cloud environment, Paragraph 29)
process, via the one or more processors, the user command, wherein the processing causes one or more cloud functions to be performed affecting the state of at least one of the cloud environments; (The GUI can then invoke a containerized cluster API operation, which can create a VM (one or more cloud functions) using the parameter values provided by the user in the form fields (user command), Paragraph 16)
and transmit, via the one or more electronic networks, a status code based on the processing of the user command. (display the status and results of the operation (status code), Paragraph 16)
With respect to Claim 2, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Elimelech further discloses:
the memory having stored thereon instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
determine that the user command is an API command of a DevOps user. (The GUI can then invoke a containerized cluster API operation, (API command) which can create a VM using the parameter values provided by the user (DevOps user) in the form fields, Paragraph 16; Users, such as computer program developer team members, system administrators, development operations team members, (DevOps user) and so on, can use a cluster management user interface 154 to perform operations on the containerized cluster 150, such as creating and managing applications and infrastructure used by the applications, Paragraph 25)
With respect to Claim 3, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Elimelech further discloses:
the memory having stored thereon instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
determine that the user command is a GUI command of an IT user. (The GUI can display menus listing operations that can be performed by the containerized cluster. The user (IT user) can select a menu item, such a “Create Virtual Machine,” (GUI command) and in response, the GUI can present a form that includes fields corresponding to the input parameters of the containerized cluster's Create Virtual Machine operation, Paragraph 16; Users, such as computer program developer team members, system administrators, development operations team members, (IT user) and so on, can use a cluster management user interface 154 to perform operations on the containerized cluster 150, such as creating and managing applications and infrastructure used by the applications, Paragraph 25)
With respect to Claim 4, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Elimelech further discloses:
wherein the one or more cloud functions include at least one of (i) creating, modifying or deleting a virtual machine, (ii) creating modifying or deleting an electronic database, (iii) creating, modifying or deleting a messaging service, (iv) creating, modifying or deleting an electronic network, or (v) creating, modifying or deleting an IAM role or policy. (a GUI can include a wizard that creates a virtual machine in the containerized cluster, Paragraph 16)
With respect to Claim 7, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Elimelech further discloses:
the memory having stored thereon instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
create, modify or delete one or more configuration files used to parameterize an infrastructure-as-code computing platform. (see Figure 2B; a user changes the value of the VM name parameter from “vm-name-01” to “vm-name-02”, e.g., by editing the command text 230 in the text editor field 224, the user interface 201B is presented (modifying one or more configuration files), Paragraphs 40-41; configuration file is used to create a virtual machine in a cloud environment (infrastructure-as-code computing platform), Paragraph 37)
Claims 8-11 and 14 are non-transitory computer-readable medium claims corresponding to the system claims above (Claims 1-4 and 7) and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1-4 and 7.
Claims 15-18 and 20 are method claims corresponding to the system claims above (Claims 1-4 and 7) and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1-4 and 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 5-6, 12-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elimelech (US 2023/0132877) in view of Deshpande et al. (US 2015/0032897).
With respect to Claim 5, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Elimelech does not disclose:
the memory having stored thereon instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
generate one more visualizations of data corresponding to at least one of the cloud environments.
However, Deshpande et al. disclose:
the memory having stored thereon instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
generate one more visualizations of data corresponding to at least one of the cloud environments. (utilization visualization program 200 displays the visualization of resource utilization corresponding to the associated profile (one or more cloud environments), Paragraph 32; the visualization can include charts, data tables and graphical depictions that are populated with data from storage device 122 corresponding to resource utilization data 123 of resources 142, 152 and 162, which relate to profile 116 of the user of client device 110. Visualization of the resource utilization 124 indicates how server 140, 150 and 160 execute the workload distribution, Paragraph 30; server 140, 150 and 160 are part of a cloud computing environment and are utilized to execute workloads, Paragraph 23)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Deshpande et al. into the teaching of Elimelech to include generating one more visualizations of data corresponding to at least one of the cloud environments in order to identify optimal usage of a cloud environment by determining additional workloads that can be deployed on servers in the cloud environment. (Deshpande et al., Paragraphs 7-8)
With respect to Claim 6, all the limitations of Claim 5 have been addressed above; and Elimelech does not disclose:
wherein the visualizations include at least one of (i) a workload visualization, (ii) an application traffic change visualization, or (iii) an interactive workload management panel.
However, Deshpande et al. disclose:
wherein the visualizations include at least one of (i) a workload visualization, (ii) an application traffic change visualization, or (iii) an interactive workload management panel. (the user of client device 110 to view resources 142, 152 and 162 of server 140, 150 and 160 that are executing workloads that are deployed on server 140, 150 and 160 (workload visualization), Paragraph 31; Utilization visualization program 200 allows for customization of visualization of resource utilization 124 (determined in step 208), which can include, but is not limited to determining different resources to include in the visualization (e.g., resources not associated with an individuals profile), and applying filters to data in the visualization, Paragraph 32)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Deshpande et al. into the teaching of Elimelech to include wherein the visualizations include at least one of (i) a workload visualization, (ii) an application traffic change visualization, or (iii) an interactive workload management panel in order to identify optimal usage of a cloud environment by determining additional workloads that can be deployed on servers in the cloud environment. (Deshpande et al., Paragraphs 7-8)
Claims 12-13 are non-transitory computer-readable medium claims corresponding to the system claims above (Claims 5-6) and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 5-6.
Claim 19 is a method claim corresponding to the system claim above (Claim 12) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yangisawa et al. (US 2015/0339150) discloses a cloud user creating virtual machines using a management console.
Bursell (US 2014/0258446) disclose dynamic configuration in cloud computing environments.
Chen et al. (US 2020/0110631) discloses virtual machine deployment method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LANNY N UNG whose telephone number is (571)270-7708. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
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.
/LANNY N UNG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2197