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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined in this office action.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, mathematical relationship or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Statutory Category: Claim 8 recites a method, comprising: receiving an evaluation request for one or more portions of application data; determining a first plurality of role parameters configured to indicate a first plurality of testing operations corresponding to a first portion of the application data, the application data comprising a plurality of portions and each portion indicating specific functions of an application to be tested; obtaining a first server profile from one or more role directories, the first server profile being associated with a first plurality of entitlements in the one or more role directories; determining whether the first plurality of entitlements at least partially match the first plurality of role parameters; in response to determining that the first plurality of entitlements at least partially match the first plurality of role parameters, identifying a first managed server associated with the first server profile, the first managed server comprising one or more pods; assigning the first plurality of testing operations to a first plurality of pods in the first managed server; and instructing the first plurality of pods to perform the first plurality of testing operations.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Claim 8 recites: determining a first plurality of role parameters configured to indicate a first plurality of testing operations corresponding to a first portion of the application data, the application data comprising a plurality of portions and each portion indicating specific functions of an application to be tested (a mental step of determination); determining whether the first plurality of entitlements at least partially match the first plurality of role parameters; (a mental step of determination); in response to determining that the first plurality of entitlements at least partially match the first plurality of role parameters, identifying a first managed server associated with the first server profile, the first managed server comprising one or more pods (a mental step of identification); assigning the first plurality of testing operations to a first plurality of pods in the first managed server (a mental step of assigning). That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under step 2A prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 8 recites additional elements such as “receiving an evaluation request for one or more portions of application data”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, these elements amount to mere data gathering for a mental process, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element and an extra-solution activity). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 8 recites additional elements such as “obtaining a first server profile from one or more role directories, the first server profile being associated with a first plurality of entitlements in the one or more role directories”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, these elements amount to mere data gathering for a mental process, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element and an extra-solution activity). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 8 recites additional elements such as instructing the first plurality of pods to perform the first plurality of testing operations, which is a post solution activity of executing test instructions, that is a Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional (WURC) Activity, as evidenced in Zhang (claim 1; paragraph [0056]; executing a test plan (testing operations) on a test environment, which comprises a plurality of pods). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Prong II step 2B.
Dependent claims 9-14 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 dependent claims 9-14 recite more steps of a mental process (such as determining, assigning) which can be performed mentally or using pen and paper. The additional element of dependent claims 9-14 recite more extra-solution activities (obtaining, releasing testing operations, performing operations), which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 1 (a system with memory and a processor to perform the method of claim 8) with dependent claims 2-7 are rejected under the similar rational as claims 8-14. The additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than generic hardware component with instructions to apply the exception, which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Independent claim 15 (a storage medium storing instructions to perform the method similar to claim 8) with dependent claims 16-20 are rejected under the similar rational as claims 8-14. The additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than generic hardware component with instructions to apply the exception, which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
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 1-5, 7-12, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0250074) hereinafter Zhang, in view of Manjure et al. (US PGPUB 2002/0116507) hereinafter Manjure.
Per claim 1, Zhang discloses an apparatus, comprising: a memory configured to store: application data comprising a plurality of portions, each portion indicating specific functions of an application to be tested; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to: (claims 1, 19; paragraphs [0078]; a system with a processor and memory; receiving user defined test configuration data, which comprised of multiple portions; each portion contains instructions for executing the particular test code used in a particular test); receive an evaluation request for one or more portions of the application data; determine a first plurality of role parameters configured to indicate a first plurality of testing operations corresponding to a first portion of the application data (paragraphs [0034][0097][0114][0115]; claim 1; receiving a request to perform a test, based on a first user defined test configuration, generating a first test execution plan, which contains parameters (role parameters) for a first plurality of test operations); the first managed server comprising one or more pods; assign the first plurality of testing operations to a first plurality of pods in the first managed server; and instruct the first plurality of pods to perform the first plurality of testing operations (claim 1; paragraph [0056]; executing a first test execution plan (test operations) on a first test environment (first managed server), the first test environment is a container environment with plurality of container pods).
Zhang does not explicitly teach obtain a first server profile from one or more role directories, the first server profile being associated with a first plurality of entitlements in the one or more role directories; determine whether the first plurality of entitlements at least partially match the first plurality of role parameters; in response to determining that the first plurality of entitlements at least partially match the first plurality of role parameters, identify a first managed server associated with the first server profile. However, Manjure suggests the above (paragraphs [0028]]0029][0036][0041][0042]; a database storing a plurality of test cases, each test case is associated with a server configuration requirement (role parameters); a database storing configuration capability attributes (server profile being associated with a first plurality of entitlements) of a plurality of servers in database tables (directories); a test controller will match configuration attributes of a server to server configuration requirement (including access policy requirement) of a test case, and will assign the test case to a matched server for execution). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine Zhang and Manjure to match configuration capability attributes of a server to configuration requirement of a test execution plan (matching the first plurality of entitlements to the first plurality of role parameters), to order to select the server that is the best fit for executing the test case (this would ensure the most optimal server executes the test case for test efficiency).
Per claim 2, Zhang further suggests assign a second plurality of testing operations to a second plurality of pods in the first managed server; release the second plurality of testing operations to the second plurality of pods; assign a third plurality of testing operations to a third plurality of pods in the first managed server; and release the third plurality of testing operations to the third plurality of pods (claim 1; paragraph [0056]; executing a first test execution plan on a first test environment (first managed server), the first test environment is a container environment with plurality of container pods; the first test execution plan contains a plurality of test operations; it would have been obvious that the plurality of test operations (second test operations and third test operations) are assigned and distributed to the plurality of container pods for distributed parallel execution (for a faster and more efficient testing process)).
Per claim 3, Zhang further suggests determine a second plurality of role parameters configured to indicate a second plurality of testing operations corresponding to a second portion of the application data; assign the second plurality of testing operations to a second plurality of pods in the second managed server; and release the second plurality of testing operations to the second plurality of pods (paragraphs [0034][0097][0114][0115]; claims 1, 8; receiving a request to perform a test, based on a second user defined test configuration, generating a second test execution plan, which contains parameters (role parameters) for a second plurality of test operations; paragraph [0056]; executing the second test execution plan on a second test environment (second managed server), the second test environment is a container environment with plurality of container pods). Manjure further suggests obtain a second server profile from the one or more role directories, the second server profile being associated with a second plurality of entitlements in the one or more role directories; determine whether the second plurality of entitlements at least partially match the second plurality of role parameters; in response to determining that the second plurality of entitlements at least partially match the second plurality of role parameters, identify a second managed server associated with the second server profile (paragraphs [0028]]0029][0036][0041][0042]; a database storing a plurality of test cases, each test case is associated with a server configuration requirement (role parameters); a database storing configuration capability attributes (server profile being associated with a second plurality of entitlements) of a plurality of servers in database tables; a test controller will match configuration attributes of a server to server configuration requirement (including access policy requirement) of a test case, and will assign the test case to a matched server for execution).
Per claim 4, Zhang further suggests wherein the processor is further configured to perform one or more instructing node operations in a communication network (paragraphs [0055][0139]; a container management service to perform container management operations in a network environment of plurality of nodes).
Per claim 5, Zhang further suggests wherein the first managed server is configured to perform one or more worker node operations in a communication network (paragraphs [0055][0139]; a container management service to perform container management operations in a network environment of plurality of nodes).
Per claim 7, Zhang further suggests determine a second plurality of role parameters configured to indicate a second plurality of testing operations corresponding to a second portion of the application data; assign the second plurality of testing operations to a second plurality of pods in the second managed server; and release the second plurality of testing operations to the second plurality of pods (paragraphs [0034][0097][0114][0115]; claims 1, 8; receiving a request to perform a test, based on a second user defined test configuration, generating a second test execution plan, which contains parameters (role parameters) for a second plurality of test operations; paragraph [0056]; executing the second test execution plan on a second test environment (second managed server), the second test environment is a container environment with plurality of container pods). Manjure further suggests obtain a second server profile from the one or more role directories, the second server profile being associated with a second plurality of entitlements in the one or more role directories; determine whether the second plurality of entitlements at least partially match the second plurality of role parameters; in response to determining that the second plurality of entitlements do not at least partially match the second plurality of role parameters, obtain a third server profile from the one or more role directories, the third server profile being associated with a third plurality of entitlements in the one or more role directories; determine whether the third plurality of entitlements at least partially match the second plurality of role parameters; in response to determining that the third plurality of entitlements at least partially match the second plurality of role parameters, identify a second managed server associated with the third server profile (paragraphs [0028]]0029][0036][0041][0042]; a database storing a plurality of test cases, each test case is associated with a server configuration requirement (role parameters); a database storing configuration capability attributes (server profile being associated with a second plurality of entitlements) of a plurality of servers in database tables; a test controller will match configuration attributes of a server to server configuration requirement (including access policy requirement) of a test case, and will assign the test case to a matched server for execution; i.e. if profile of a second server does not match the requirement of a test case, then a profile of a third server will be compared to the requirement of the test case, until a matched server is found).
Claims 8-12 and 14 recite similar limitations as claims 1-5 and 7. Therefore, claims 8-12 and 14 are rejected under similar rationales as claims 1-5 and 7.
Claims 15-19 recite similar limitations as claims 1-5. Therefore, claims 15-19 are rejected under similar rationales as claims 1-5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANG PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7667. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 PM.
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.
/HANG PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193