DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the Application No. 18423053 filed on 01/25/2024. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination and are currently pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Independent claim 1 is directed to a system, and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas:
based on the respective default survey responses, assigning, via a data store, a capability level of a group of capability levels to each function of the group of functions (Mental process directed to assigning capability level to each function of the group of functions which can be done by observing survey responses and making a judgement on when to assign the capability levels);
converting a group of assigned capability levels that have been assigned to the group of functions into a distinct capability signature that numerically represents a derived capability profile of the group of functions, (Mental process directed to converting a group of assigned capability levels a distinct capability signature which can be done by observing the assigned capability levels and making a judgement on when to assign the distinct capability signature to the capability levels); and
Step 2A, Prong 2
a processor (This limitation is directed to a processor which is a generic computer component. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and
a memory that stores executable components that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations by the system, the operations (This limitation is directed to a computer component which is a generic computer component. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f)) comprising:
sending, via a client interface, default survey questions directed to a client (This limitation is directed to insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)),
wherein the default survey questions are directed to assess current capabilities of respective functions of a group of functions corresponding to a cloud computing environment and infrastructure of the client (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use and it does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h));
receiving, via the client interface, respective default survey responses to the default survey questions (This limitation is directed to insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g));
wherein the group of assigned capability levels comprises the capability level (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use and it does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h))
based on the derived capability profile, predicting, using a machine learning process, follow-up survey questions that are directed to further assess additional functional capabilities of the group of functions, or alternate functional capabilities of a different group of functions that is different from the group of functions (This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
a processor (This limitation is directed to a processor which is a generic computer component. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and
a memory that stores executable components that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations by the system, the operations (This limitation is directed to a computer component which is a generic computer component. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f)) comprising:
sending, via a client interface, default survey questions directed to a client (This limitation is directed to insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission and it is well understood routine and conventional. This does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II),example i),
wherein the default survey questions are directed to assess current capabilities of respective functions of a group of functions corresponding to a cloud computing environment and infrastructure of the client (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use and it does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h));
receiving, via the client interface, respective default survey responses to the default survey questions (This limitation is directed to insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and it is well understood routine and conventional. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II),example i);
wherein the group of assigned capability levels comprises the capability level (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use and it does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h))
based on the derived capability profile, predicting, using a machine learning process, follow-up survey questions that are directed to further assess additional functional capabilities of the group of functions, or alternate functional capabilities of a different group of functions that is different from the group of functions (This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
4. Dependent claim 2 is directed to a system, and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 2 recites the following abstract ideas:
wherein the assigning of the capability level to each function comprises: determining a sum of respective scores of a group of responses corresponding to a group of survey questions of the default survey questions that have been directed to assess capabilities of a function of the group of functions (Mental process directed to determining a sum of respective scores of a group of responses corresponding to a group of survey questions of the default survey question which can be done by observing the survey questions and making a judgement on the group of responses); and
based on the sum being determined to correspond to the capability level, assigning the capability level to the function (Mental process directed to assigning the capability level to the function which can be done by observing the capability level and making a judgement on when to assign the function).
Claim 2 do not recite any additional elements.
5. Dependent claim 3 is directed to a system, and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 3 recites the following abstract ideas:
wherein each distinct capability level of the triad of distinct capability levels corresponds to a defined range of the sum of the respective scores of the group of responses (Mental process directed to having that each distinct capability level of the triad of distinct capability levels corresponds to a defined range of the sum of the respective scores of the group of responses which can be done by observation).
Claim 3 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the group of capability levels comprises a triad of distinct capability levels (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. see
MPEP 2106.05(h)), and
Claim 3 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the group of capability levels comprises a triad of distinct capability levels (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h)), and
6. Dependent claim 4 is directed to a system, and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 4 recites the following abstract ideas:
wherein the converting of the group of assigned capability levels into the distinct capability signature comprises: based on a number of functions that have been included in the group of functions, generating the distinct capability signature (Mental process directed to converting of the group of assigned capability levels into the distinct capability signature which can be done by observing and making a judgement on the conversion),
wherein the distinct capability signature comprises a defined number of digits of a defined mathematical radix (Mathematical concept directed to a defined number of digits of a defined mathematical radix), and
wherein the defined number of digits has been selected to equal the number of functions that have been included in the group of functions (Mathematical concept directed to mathematical relationship between the defined number of digits and the number of functions).
Claim 4 do not recite any additional elements.
7. Dependent claim 5 is directed to a system, and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 5 recites the following abstract ideas:
wherein the converting of the group of assigned capability levels into the distinct capability signature comprises: based on historical training data comprising responses to a defined amount of survey questions that have been directed to assess respective capabilities of the cloud computing environment and infrastructure, associating, via the data store, the distinct capability signature with the derived capability profile (Mental process directed to converting of the group of assigned capability levels into the distinct capability signature which can be done by observing the responses to a defined amount of survey questions and making a judgement whether to associate the distinct capability signature with the derived capability profile),
Claim 5 recite the following additional elements:
wherein the derived capability profile represents a capability profile that requires information about the additional functional capabilities of the group of functions or the alternate functional capabilities of the different group of functions (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2105.05 (h)).
Claim 5 recite the following additional elements:
wherein the derived capability profile represents a capability profile that requires information about the additional functional capabilities of the group of functions or the alternate functional capabilities of the different group of functions (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2105.05 (h)).
8. Dependent claim 6 is directed to a system, and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 6 recites the following abstract ideas:
wherein the predicting of the follow-up survey questions comprises: based on the distinct capability signature, selecting, using the data store, the derived capability profile (Mental process directed to selecting the derived capability profile which can be done by observing distinct capability signature and making a judgement on the selection); and
based on the derived capability profile, selecting the follow-up survey questions (Mental process directed to selecting the follow-up survey questions which can be done by observing derived capability profile and making a judgement on the selection).
Claim 6 do not recite any additional elements.
9. Dependent claim 7 is directed to a system, and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 7 recite the following abstract ideas:
based on the respective follow-up survey responses and the first distinct capability signature, generating a second distinct capability signature that numerically represents an updated derived capability profile of at least one of the group of functions or the different group of functions (Mental process directed to generating a second distinct capability signature represents an updated derived capability profile which can be done by observing the follow-up survey responses and making a judgement on the generation of the second distinct capability signature);
based on the updated derived capability profile, generating a summarized output comprising at least one of a determined capability of the group of functions, a determined capability of the different group of functions, a determined risk impeding a performance of the group of functions, a determined risk impeding a performance of the different group of functions, or a suggested change corresponding to the cloud computing environment and infrastructure to facilitate an optimization of the group of functions or the different group of functions (Mental process directed to generating a summarized output comprising at least one of a determined capability of the group of functions which can be done by observing the updated derived capability profile and making a judgement on the generation of the summary); and
Claim 7 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the distinct capability signature is a first distinct capability signature, and wherein the operations further comprise (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05 (h)):
sending, via the client interface, the follow-up survey questions directed to the client (This limitation is directed to insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g));
receiving, via the client interface, respective follow-up survey responses to the follow-up survey questions (This limitation is directed to insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g));
sending, via the client interface, the summarized output directed to the client (This limitation is directed to insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 7 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the distinct capability signature is a first distinct capability signature, and wherein the operations further comprise (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h)):
sending, via the client interface, the follow-up survey questions directed to the client (This limitation is directed to insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission and it is well understood routine and conventional. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), example i);
receiving, via the client interface, respective follow-up survey responses to the follow-up survey questions (This limitation is directed to insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission and it is well understood routine and conventional. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), example i);
sending, via the client interface, the summarized output directed to the client (This limitation is directed to insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission and it is well understood routine and conventional. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), example i).
10. Dependent claim 8 is directed to a system, and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 8 recites the following abstract ideas:
wherein the generating of the second distinct capability signature comprises: associating, via the data store, the second distinct capability signature with the updated derived capability profile (Mental process directed to generating of the second distinct capability signature which can be done by associating the second distinct capability signature with the updated derived capability profile by a pen and paper),
Claim 8 recite the following additional elements:
wherein the updated derived capability profile specifies the summarized output (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
Claim 8 recite the following additional elements:
wherein the updated derived capability profile specifies the summarized output (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
11. Dependent claim 9 is directed to a system, and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 9 recites the following abstract ideas:
wherein the generating of the summarized output comprises: based on the second distinct capability signature, selecting, using the data store, the updated derived capability profile (Mental process directed to generating the summarized output which can be done by observing the second distinct capability signature and making a judgement on the selection of the updated derived capability profile); and
based on the updated derived capability profile, selecting the summarized output (Mental process directed to selecting the summarized output which can be done by observing the updated derived capability profile and making a judgement on the selection).
Claim 9 do not recite any additional elements.
12. Dependent claim 10 is directed to a system, and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 10 do not recite any abstract ideas.
Claim 10 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the derived capability profile and the updated derived capability profile represent at least one of a performance capability profile, a reliability capability profile, a data security capability profile, a cost management capability profile, an organizational capability profile, or an operational sustainability capability profile (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2105.05 (h)).
Claim 10 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the derived capability profile and the updated derived capability profile represent at least one of a performance capability profile, a reliability capability profile, a data security capability profile, a cost management capability profile, an organizational capability profile, or an operational sustainability capability profile (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2105.05 (h)).
13. Dependent claim 11 is directed to a system, and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 11 do not recite any abstract ideas.
Claim 11 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the group of functions comprises an array of functional capabilities corresponding to an operation of the cloud computing environment, a security of the cloud computing environment, and a performance optimization of the cloud computing environment, and wherein the functional capabilities comprise data management functions, data security functions, resource allocation functions, and service continuity functions (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2105.05 (h)).
Claim 11 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the group of functions comprises an array of functional capabilities corresponding to an operation of the cloud computing environment, a security of the cloud computing environment, and a performance optimization of the cloud computing environment, and wherein the functional capabilities comprise data management functions, data security functions, resource allocation functions, and service continuity functions (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2105.05 (h)).
14. Dependent claim 12 is directed to a system, and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 12 do not recite any abstract ideas.
Claim 12 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the cloud computing environment and infrastructure comprises at least one of a storage network, a computing network, a cloud-based network, a cloud computing environment, a data center, or an on-premises-based network (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2105.05 (h)).
Claim 12 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the cloud computing environment and infrastructure comprises at least one of a storage network, a computing network, a cloud-based network, a cloud computing environment, a data center, or an on-premises-based network (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2105.05 (h)).
15. Independent claim 13 is directed to a method, and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
With regards to claim 13, it is substantially similar to claim 1, and is rejected in the same manner and reasoning applying.
16. Dependent claim 14 is directed to a method, and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 14 recites the following abstract ideas:
wherein the assigning of the distinct capability level comprises: quantifying a sum of scores of a group of responses of the respective initial survey responses corresponding to a function of the group of functions into the distinct capability level (Mental process directed to quantifying the sum of scores of a group of responses of the respective initial survey responses which can be done by observing the group of responses of the respective initial survey responses and making a judgement on the quantifying).
Claim 14 do not recite any additional elements.
17. Dependent claim 15 is directed to a method, and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 15 recites the following abstract ideas:
wherein the defined number of distinct capability levels is three (Mathematical concepts directed to defining number of distinct capability levels to three), and
wherein the converting of the group of distinct capability levels that have been assigned to the group of functions comprises: transforming the group of distinct capability levels into a trinary signature representing the derived capability profile (Mental process directed to transforming the group of distinct capability levels into a trinary signature which can be done by observing the distinct capability levels and making a judgement on the transforming),
wherein the trinary signature comprises a number of digits that are equal to a number of functions that have been included in the group of functions (Mathematical concepts directed to equating number of distinct capability levels to three), and
Claim 15 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the derived capability profile expects further information about the functional capabilities of the group of functions or the other functional capabilities that are different from the respective functional capabilities of the group of functions (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2105.05 (h)).
Claim 15 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the derived capability profile expects further information about the functional capabilities of the group of functions or the other functional capabilities that are different from the respective functional capabilities of the group of functions (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2105.05 (h)).
18. Dependent claim 16 is directed to a method, and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 16 recites the following abstract ideas:
wherein the predicting comprises: based on historical training data comprising responses to a defined number of survey questions that have been directed to assess respective capabilities of the cloud computing environment and infrastructure, associating, respective distinct signatures comprising the distinct signature to respective survey questions of the follow-up survey questions (Mental process directed to predicting based on historical training data which can be done by observing the responses to a defined number of survey questions).
Claim 16 recites the following additional elements:
utilizing a machine learning process via a data store (This limitation is directed to mere instructions to carry out the abstract ideas. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2105.05 (f)),
Claim 16 recites the following additional elements:
utilizing a machine learning process via a data store (This limitation is directed to mere instructions to carry out the abstract ideas. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2105.05 (f)),
19. Dependent claim 17 is directed to a method, and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
With regards to claim 17, it is substantially similar to claim 7, and is rejected in the same manner and reasoning applying.
20. Dependent claim 18 is directed to a method, and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 18 recites the following abstract ideas:
wherein at least one of the generating of the distinct signature or the generating of the modified distinct signature comprises: converting, the respective free-form text fields into a text output comprising respective keywords representing content of the free-form text fields (Mental process directed to generating of the distinct signature which can be done by converting the respective free-form text fields into a text output with pen and paper); and
based on the text output and the respective keywords, generating at least one of the distinct signature or the modified distinct signature (Mental process directed to generating the distinct signature which can be done by observing the text output and the respective keywords and making a judgement on the generation of the distinct signature).
Claim 18 recites the following additional elements:
wherein respective portions of at least one of the initial survey questions or the follow-up survey questions comprise respective free-form text fields (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2105.05 (h)), and
utilizing natural language processing via a machine learning process (This limitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2105.05 (h)),
Claim 18 recites the following additional elements:
wherein respective portions of at least one of the initial survey questions or the follow-up survey questions comprise respective free-form text fields (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2105.05 (h)), and
utilizing natural language processing via a machine learning process (This limitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2105.05 (h)),
21. Independent claim 19 is directed to a machine, and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
With regards to claim 19, it is substantially similar to claim 1, and is rejected in the same manner and reasoning applying.
Claim 19 further recites “a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that, in response to execution, cause a system comprising at least one processor to perform operations, the operations”, this limitation is directed to a computer component. This is directed to high level recitation of generic computer component. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor does it amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
22. Dependent claim 20 is directed to a machine, and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 20 recites the following abstract ideas:
based on the respective follow-up survey responses, generating a second distinct signature that numerically represents an updated derived capability profile of at least one of the group of functions or the different group of functions (Mental process directed to generating a second distinct signature that numerically represents an updated derived capability profile which can be done by observing the respective follow-up survey responses and making a judgement on the generation of the distinct signature),
based on the updated derived capability profile, generating an output comprising a summary of at least one of a capability of the cloud computing environment and infrastructure, a determined risk impeding a performance of the cloud computing environment and infrastructure, or a suggested change corresponding to the cloud computing environment and infrastructure to facilitate an optimization the cloud computing environment and infrastructure (Mental process directed to generating an output that comprises a summary of a capability of the cloud computing environment which can be done by observing the updated derived capability profile and making a judgement on the generation of the summary); and
Claim 20 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the distinct signature is a first distinct signature (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2105.05 (h)), and
wherein the operations further comprise: in response to sending the follow-up survey questions directed to the user device, receiving respective follow-up survey responses to the follow-up survey questions (This limitation is directed to insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g));
sending the output directed to the user device (This limitation is directed to insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 20 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the distinct signature is a first distinct signature (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use. This does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2105.05 (h)), and
wherein the operations further comprise: in response to sending the follow-up survey questions directed to the user device, receiving respective follow-up survey responses to the follow-up survey questions (This limitation is directed to insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission and it is well understood routine and conventional. This does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), example i);
sending the output directed to the user device (This limitation is directed to insignificant extra solution activity of data transmission and it is well understood routine and conventional. This does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), example i).
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.
23. Claims 1, 4, 5, 12, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US20190066134) in view of Ahmed et al. ("Modeling cloud computing risk assessment using machine learning." Afro-European Conference for Industrial Advancement: Proceedings of the First International Afro-European Conference for Industrial Advancement AECIA 2014. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a system, comprising: a processor; and a memory that stores executable components that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations by the system (The user computing device 120 and/or the server 130 may include one or more processors 902, one or more computer-readable RAMs 904, one or more computer-readable ROMs 906, one or more computer readable storage media 908 ... all interconnected over a communications fabric 918 [0036]),
the operations comprising: sending, via a client interface (The communication module 132 is capable of transmitting a survey from the survey conductor module 156 to the user computing device 120 to be displayed by the graphical user interface 122 [0023]),
default survey questions directed to a client (The computer transmits a survey to each user of the survey sample [0004]),
wherein the default survey questions (The survey sample selector module 154 selects a biased survey sample to favor user dissatisfaction [0030]) are directed to assess current capabilities of respective functions of a group of functions corresponding to a cloud computing environment and infrastructure of the client (the user computing device 120 may operate in a cloud computing environment [0020]; This allows cloud computing environment 50 to offer infrastructure, platforms and/or software as services for which a cloud consumer does not need to maintain resources on a local computing device [0068]; companies conduct surveys to assess user satisfaction at a service request level [0002]);
receiving, via the client interface, respective default survey responses to the default survey questions (The graphical user interface 122 can be any type of application that contains the interface necessary to receive a survey from a survey conductor module 156 [0021]);
based on the respective default survey responses, assigning, via a data store (The historical survey results database 142 and the historical service request information database 144 are data stores that store previously obtained data. The historical survey results database 142 contains the results of previously administered user surveys [0025]),
a capability level of a group of capability levels to each function of the group of functions (Measured service: cloud systems automatically control and optimize resource use by leveraging a metering capability at some level of abstraction appropriate to the type of service (e.g., storage, processing, bandwidth, and active user accounts). Resource usage can be monitored, controlled, and reported, providing transparency for both the provider and consumer of the utilized service [0057]);
converting a group of assigned capability levels that have been assigned to the group of functions into a distinct capability signature (prediction trainer module 148 uses a logistic regression model and learns a function of the input features, a subset of the service request metrics used in the model ... using an iterative training and testing process, which includes the selected metrics as its input parameters [0027]; The plurality of historic service request information includes at least one service request fulfillment related metric, wherein the at least one metric includes a total time spent resolving a problem, a total travel time, a total onsite time, a at least one part used, and/or a plurality of other metrics [0004])
and based on the derived capability profile, predicting, using a machine learning process (The present invention relates generally to the field of machine learning-guided survey sample selection [0001]),
follow-up survey questions that are directed to further assess additional functional capabilities of the group of functions (the use of analytics to predict survey results without conducting surveys, by analyzing historical survey results [0002]. The Examiner notes that since the computer initially transmit a survey to each user of the survey sample [0004] “predict survey results without conducting surveys” indicates predicting future survey questions and results from historical (or previous) survey), or alternate functional capabilities of a different group of functions that is different from the group of functions.
Li does not explicitly teach converting a group of assigned capability levels that have been assigned to the group of functions into a distinct capability signature that numerically represents a derived capability profile of the group of functions, wherein the group of assigned capability levels comprises the capability level;
Ahmed teaches converting a group of assigned capability levels (Range value 0-3, Table 1, page 321) that have been assigned to the group of functions into a distinct capability signature (DT (Data Transfer): Sensitive data are obtained from customers, processed and stored at the cloud provider end (pg. 317, section 2.4); Service Level Agreement (SLA): The organization needs to ensure that the terms of (SLA) are being met (pg. 319, section 2.17); Data location and Investigative Support (DL&IS): Most cloud service providers have many data centers around the globe (pg. 318, section 2.10); Authentication and Access Control (A&AC); Organization’s private and sensitive data must be secure and only authenticated users can access it, pg. 316, section 2.1, Table 1, pg. 321) that numerically represents a derived capability profile of the group of functions, wherein the group of assigned capability levels comprises the capability level (DT (Data Transfer): Range value 0-3; Service Level Agreement (SLA): Range value 0-3; Data location and Investigative Support (DL&IS): Range value 0-3; Authentication and Access Control (A&AC): Range value 0-3, Table 1, pg. 321);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li to incorporate the teachings of Ahmed for the benefit of consumers who start using cloud computing services to confirm whether the product satisfies their needs (Ahmed, pg. 316, second para.)
Regarding claim 4, Li and Ahmed teaches the system of claim 1, Ahmed teaches wherein the converting of the group of assigned capability levels into the distinct capability signature comprises: based on a number of functions that have been included in the group of functions, generating the distinct capability signature (DT (Data Transfer): Sensitive data are obtained from customers, processed and stored at the cloud provider end (pg. 317, section 2.4); Service Level Agreement (SLA): The organization needs to ensure that the terms of (SLA) are being met (pg. 319, section 2.17); Data location and Investigative Support (DL&IS): Most cloud service providers have many data centers around the globe (pg. 318, section 2.10); Authentication and Access Control (A&AC); Organization’s private and sensitive data must be secure and only authenticated users can access it, pg. 316, section 2.1, Table 1, pg. 321),
wherein the distinct capability signature comprises a defined number of digits of a defined mathematical radix (DT (Data Transfer): Range value 0-3; Service Level Agreement (SLA): Range value 0-3; Data location and Investigative Support (DL&IS): Range value 0-3; Authentication and Access Control (A&AC): Range value 0-3, Table 1, pg. 321), and
wherein the defined number of digits (Range value 0-3, Table 1) has been selected to equal the number of functions that have been included in the group of functions (DT (Data Transfer); Service Level Agreement (SLA); Data location and Investigative Support (DL&IS); Authentication and Access Control (A&AC), Table 1, pg. 321).
The same motivation to combine independent claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 5, Li and Ahmed teaches the system of claim 1, Li teaches wherein the converting of the group of assigned capability levels into the distinct capability signature ( prediction trainer module 148 uses a logistic regression model and learns a function of the input features, a subset of the service request metrics used in the model ... using an iterative training and testing process, which includes the selected metrics as its input parameters [0027]) comprises:
based on historical training data (The historical survey results database 142 and the historical service request information database 144 transmit their contents to the information collector module 146 as training data [0025]) comprising responses to a defined amount of survey questions that have been directed to assess respective capabilities of the cloud computing environment and infrastructure (The survey sample that has a bias toward dissatisfied users is then sent to the original service requesters to complete in order to get a higher number of survey responses [0016]), associating, via the data store (The historical survey results database 142 and the historical service request information database 144 are data stores that store previously obtained data [0025]),
the distinct capability signature with the derived capability profile (Measured service: cloud systems automatically control and optimize resource use by leveraging a metering capability at some level of abstraction appropriate to the type of service (e.g., storage, processing, bandwidth, and active user accounts) [0057]; This cloud model may include...characteristics [0051] and the characteristics include [0052] Measured service (characteristic) [0057] and Rapid elasticity (characteristic) [0056]; The Examiner notes distinct capability signature is associated with the derived capability profile based on the characteristics of the cloud model),
wherein the derived capability profile represents a capability profile that requires information about the additional functional capabilities of the group of functions or the alternate functional capabilities of the different group of functions (Rapid elasticity: capabilities can be rapidly and elastically provisioned, in some cases automatically, to quickly scale out and rapidly released to quickly scale in. To the consumer, the capabilities available for provisioning often appear to be unlimited and can be purchased in any quantity at any time [0056]).
Regarding claim 12, Li and Ahmed teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the cloud computing environment and infrastructure comprises at least one of a storage network, a computing network, a cloud-based network, a cloud computing environment, a data center, or an on-premises-based network (the cloud infrastructure is operated solely for an organization. It may ... exist on-premises or off-premises [0063]).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is similar to claim 1. It is rejected in the same manner and reasoning applying.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is similar to claim 1. It is rejected in the same manner and reasoning applying. Further Li teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that, in response to execution, cause a system comprising at least one processor to perform operations, the operations comprising (These computer readable program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus [0047]):
24. Claims 2, 3, and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US20190066134) in view of Ahmed et al. ("Modeling cloud computing risk assessment using machine learning." Afro-European Conference for Industrial Advancement: Proceedings of the First International Afro-European Conference for Industrial Advancement AECIA 2014. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015) and further in view of Saleh et al. ("CBiLSTM: A hybrid deep learning model for efficient reputation assessment of cloud services." IEEE Access 10 (2022): 35321-35335).
Regarding claim 2, Li and Ahmed teaches the system of claim 1, Li and Ahmed does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 2.
Saleh teaches wherein the assigning of the capability level to each function comprises: determining a sum of respective scores of a group of responses corresponding to a group of survey questions of the default survey questions that have been directed to assess capabilities of a function of the group of functions (The word scores are then normalized to obtain an overall statement sentiment score, known as Compound Score. This score reflects statement polarity and corresponding intensity, and it falls in the range between −1 and1. The compound score’s formula is given in Eq.2, where x is the sum of polarity scores of constituent words and α is a normalization constant, the default value is 15, pg. 35329, left col., first para.); and
based on the sum being determined to correspond to the capability level, assigning the capability level to the function (Also, labels with a compound score lower than 0.7 are checked and updated manually. Other reviews with higher compound scores (0.8, 0.9, 1.0) have more intense polarity, thus, are more likely to be classified correctly, pg. 35329, left col., first para.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li to incorporate the teachings of Saleh for the benefit of using a deep learning-based approach that takes advantage of the rich information resources accessible online in the form of free-text user reviews and reducing the effect of unauthentic or misleading reviews (Saleh, pg. 35324, right col., second to the last para.)
Regarding claim 3, Li, Ahmed and Saleh teaches the system of claim 2, Saleh teaches wherein the group of capability levels comprises a triad of distinct capability levels (The goal of this work is to provide a reputation score for service providers based on user QoE, which is represented by categorizing reviews as ‘‘Positive’’, ‘‘Negative’’, or ‘‘Neutral’’, and provides an overall assessment of user sentiments regarding services providers, pg. 35334, left col., second para.), and
wherein each distinct capability level of the triad of distinct capability levels corresponds to a defined range of the sum of the respective scores of the group of responses (This score reflects statement polarity and corresponding intensity, and it falls in the range between −1 and1. The compound score’s formula is given in Eq.2, where x is the sum of polarity scores of constituent words and α is a normalization constant, the default value is 15, pg. 35329, left col., first para.).
The same motivation to combine dependent claim 2 applies here.
25. Claims 6-11, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US20190066134) in view of Ahmed et al. ("Modeling cloud computing risk assessment using machine learning." Afro-European Conference for Industrial Advancement: Proceedings of the First International Afro-European Conference for Industrial Advancement AECIA 2014. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015) in view of Kopikare et al. (US20210035132)
Regarding claim 6, Li and Ahmed teaches the system of claim 5, Li and Ahmed does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 6.
Kopikare teaches wherein the predicting of the follow-up survey questions comprises: based on the distinct capability signature, selecting, using the data store (The general dataset 308 stores historical (or past) survey data associated with past surveys and their corresponding responses [0057]),
the derived capability profile (the client system 1208 is an electronic device including hardware, software, or embedded logic components or a combination of two or more such components and capable of carrying out the appropriate functionalities [0142]); and
based on the derived capability profile, selecting the follow-up survey questions (the response prediction system receives a survey comprising one or more survey questions ... Furthermore, based on the predicted response quality, the response prediction system generates suggested changes (e.g., ... amend questions, add translations for certain questions, amend a question for device compatibility, etc.) and provides the suggested changes at a client device associated with an administrator [0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li and Ahmed to incorporate the teachings of Kopikare for the benefit of creating functional and useful surveys that result in functional and useful response data (Kopikare [0003])
Regarding claim 7, Li and Ahmed teaches the system of claim 1, Ahmed teaches wherein the distinct capability signature is a first distinct capability signature, and wherein the operations further (DT (Data Transfer): Range value 0-3; Service Level Agreement (SLA): Range value 0-3; Data location and Investigative Support (DL&IS): Range value 0-3; Authentication and Access Control (A&AC): Range value 0-3, Table 1, pg. 321) comprise:
The same motivation to combine independent claim 1 applies here.
Li and Ahmed does not explicitly teach sending, via the client interface, the follow-up survey questions directed to the client; receiving, via the client interface, respective follow-up survey responses to the follow-up survey questions; based on the respective follow-up survey responses and the first distinct capability signature, generating a second distinct capability signature that numerically represents an updated derived capability profile of at least one of the group of functions or the different group of functions; based on the updated derived capability profile, generating a summarized output comprising at least one of a determined capability of the group of functions, a determined capability of the different group of functions, a determined risk impeding a performance of the group of functions, a determined risk impeding a performance of the different group of functions, or a suggested change corresponding to the cloud computing environment and infrastructure to facilitate an optimization of the group of functions or the different group of functions; and sending, via the client interface, the summarized output directed to the client.
Kopikare teaches sending, via the client interface, the follow-up survey questions directed to the client (The server device 102 sends the survey to one or more recipient client devices 118 [0051]);
receiving, via the client interface, respective follow-up survey responses to the follow-up survey questions (the response prediction system receives a survey comprising one or more survey questions ... Furthermore, based on the predicted response quality, the response prediction system generates suggested changes (e.g., ... amend questions, add translations for certain questions, amend a question for device compatibility, etc.) and provides the suggested changes at a client device associated with an administrator);
based on the respective follow-up survey responses and the first distinct capability signature (As illustrated in FIG. 6A, the response quality summary 606 includes an overall score for the survey and an indication of suggested changes for the survey [0091]), generating a second distinct capability signature that numerically represents an updated derived capability profile of at least one of the group of functions or the different group of functions (For example, as illustrated, the response prediction system 106 indicates that the survey scored “great” overall. The response prediction system 106 can present other general ratings including “perfect,” “good,” “fair,” “poor,” etc [0091]);
based on the updated derived capability profile (generate an updated survey report with predictions and suggested changes based on data specific to the published survey [0023]), generating a summarized output (The survey evaluation notification 600 includes a response quality summary 606 [0090]) comprising at least one of a determined capability of the group of functions, a determined capability of the different group of functions (the client system 1208 is an electronic device including hardware, software, or embedded logic components or a combination of two or more such components and capable of carrying out the appropriate functionalities [0142]), a determined risk impeding a performance of the group of functions, a determined risk impeding a performance of the different group of functions, or a suggested change corresponding to the cloud computing environment and infrastructure to facilitate an optimization of the group of functions or the different group of functions; and
sending, via the client interface, the summarized output directed to the client ( FIG. 6A illustrates a survey evaluation notification 600 as part of the survey evaluation graphical user interface 602 via the display screen 502 of the administrator client device 114. The survey evaluation notification 600 includes a response quality summary 606 [0090]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li and Ahmed to incorporate the teachings of Kopikare for the benefit of creating functional and useful surveys that result in functional and useful response data (Kopikare [0003])
Regarding claim 8, Li, Ahmed and Kopikare teaches the system of claim 7, Kopikare teaches wherein the generating of the second distinct capability signature comprises: associating, via the data store (The general dataset 308 stores historical (or past) survey data associated with past surveys and their corresponding responses [0057]),
the second distinct capability signature with the updated derived capability profile (In particular, the response prediction system continuously retrieves feedback (e.g., survey responses and survey response quality) to generate an updated survey report [0023]; the client system 1208 is an electronic device including hardware, software, or embedded logic components or a combination of two or more such components and capable of carrying out the appropriate functionalities [0142]),
wherein the updated derived capability profile specifies the summarized output (The survey evaluation notification 600 includes a response quality summary 606 [0090]).
The same motivation to combine dependent claim 7 applies here.
Regarding claim 9, Li, Ahmed and Kopikare teaches the system of claim 8, Kopikare teaches wherein the generating of the summarized output comprises: based on the second distinct capability signature, selecting, using the data store (For example, the response prediction system 106 can extract or determine various survey attributes to then use to select survey data for use within the specific dataset to predict response quality and suggest changes to the survey to increase response quality [0060]),
the updated derived capability profile (the response prediction system 106 can provide updated suggested changes to the user to improve future response quality [0039]; the client system 1208 is an electronic device including hardware, software, or embedded logic components or a combination of two or more such components and capable of carrying out the appropriate functionalities [0142]); and
based on the updated derived capability profile (Thus, based on selection of an identified survey element 610, the response prediction system 106 updates the graphical user interface to display the indicated survey element [0095]),
selecting the summarized output (The survey evaluation notification 600 includes a response quality summary 606 [0090]).
The same motivation to combine dependent claim 7 applies here..
Regarding claim 10, Li and Ahmed teaches the system of claim 1, Li and Ahmed does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 10.
Kopikare teaches wherein the derived capability profile (In particular, the response prediction system continuously retrieves feedback (e.g., survey responses and survey response quality) [0023]) and
the updated derived capability profile represent at least one of a performance capability profile (generate an updated survey report with predictions and suggested changes based on data specific to the published survey [0023]; Further, the computing device 1100 may be a server device that includes cloud-based processing and storage capabilities [0132]), a reliability capability profile, a data security capability profile, a cost management capability profile, an organizational capability profile, or an operational sustainability capability profile.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li and Ahmed to incorporate the teachings of Kopikare for the benefit of creating functional and useful surveys that result in functional and useful response data (Kopikare [0003])
Regarding claim 11, Li, Ahmed and Kopikare teaches the system of claim 10, Li teaches wherein the group of functions comprises an array of functional capabilities corresponding to an operation of the cloud computing environment (On-demand self-service: a cloud consumer can unilaterally provision computing capabilities [0053]),
a security of the cloud computing environment (security requirements [0064]), and
a performance optimization of the cloud computing environment (Resource usage can be monitored, controlled, and reported [0057]), and
wherein the functional capabilities comprise data management functions (data and application portability (e.g., cloud bursting for load-balancing between clouds) [0066]),
data security functions (protection for data and other resources [0072]), resource allocation functions (Resource pooling: the provider's computing resources are pooled to serve multiple consumers [0055]), and service continuity functions ( Service level management 84 provides cloud computing resource allocation and management such that required service levels are met [0072]).
Regarding claim 14, Li and Ahmed teaches the method of claim 13, Li and Ahmed does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 14.
Kopikare teaches wherein the assigning of the distinct capability level comprises: quantifying a sum of scores of a group of responses of the respective initial survey responses corresponding to a function of the group of functions into the distinct capability level (In particular, the response prediction system generates scores for a number of response quality classes. The response prediction system identifies target response quality classes by determining which response quality scores fall below (or above) a corresponding threshold [0026]; the digital survey system 104 includes the response prediction system 106 [0038]; The digital survey system 104 may also include suitable components such as ... security mechanisms [0144]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li and Ahmed to incorporate the teachings of Kopikare for the benefit of creating functional and useful surveys that result in functional and useful response data (Kopikare [0003])
Regarding claim 15, Li and Ahmed teaches the method of claim 14, Li teaches wherein the derived capability profile expects further information about the functional capabilities of the group of functions or the other functional capabilities that are different from the respective functional capabilities of the group of functions (Rapid elasticity: capabilities can be rapidly and elastically provisioned, in some cases automatically, to quickly scale out and rapidly released to quickly scale in. To the consumer, the capabilities available for provisioning often appear to be unlimited and can be purchased in any quantity at any time [0056]).
Ahmed teaches wherein the defined number of distinct capability levels is three (Range value 0-3, Table 1, page 321), and
wherein the converting of the group of distinct capability levels that have been assigned to the group of functions comprises: transforming the group of distinct capability levels (DT (Data Transfer): Sensitive data are obtained from customers, processed and stored at the cloud provider end (pg. 317, section 2.4); Service Level Agreement (SLA): The organization needs to ensure that the terms of (SLA) are being met (pg. 319, section 2.17); Data location and Investigative Support (DL&IS): Most cloud service providers have many data centers around the globe (pg. 318, section 2.10); Authentication and Access Control (A&AC); Organization’s private and sensitive data must be secure and only authenticated users can access it, pg. 316, section 2.1, Table 1, pg. 321) into a trinary signature representing the derived capability profile (DT (Data Transfer): Range value 0-3; Service Level Agreement (SLA): Range value 0-3; Data location and Investigative Support (DL&IS): Range value 0-3; Authentication and Access Control (A&AC): Range value 0-3, Table 1, pg. 321),
wherein the trinary signature comprises a number of digits (Range value 0-3, Table 1) that are equal to a number of functions that have been included in the group of functions (DT (Data Transfer); Service Level Agreement (SLA); Data location and Investigative Support (DL&IS); Authentication and Access Control (A&AC), Table 1, pg. 321), and
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li to incorporate the teachings of Ahmed for the benefit of consumers who start using cloud computing services to confirm whether the product satisfies their needs (Ahmed, pg. 316, second para.)
Regarding claim 16, Li and Ahmed teaches the method of claim 13, Kopikare teaches wherein the predicting comprises (response prediction system 106 [0038]):
based on historical training data comprising responses to a defined number of survey questions that have been directed to assess respective capabilities of the cloud computing environment and infrastructure (The response prediction system extracts survey characteristics (e.g., survey length, number and type of questions, etc.) from the received survey and survey questions [0024]), associating, utilizing a machine learning process via a data store (The response prediction system generates a predicted response quality based on the extracted survey characteristics [0024].The Examiner notes the prediction system is a machine learning process),
respective distinct signatures comprising the distinct signature to respective survey questions of the follow-up survey questions (Scores for the response quality classes can comprise fractional numbers indicating the number of surveys that have response class quality scores over a corresponding threshold (e.g., 55/100 surveys have repeat answers) [0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li and Ahmed to incorporate the teachings of Kopikare for the benefit of creating functional and useful surveys that result in functional and useful response data (Kopikare [0003])
Regarding claim 17, Li and Ahmed teaches the method of claim 13, Li and Ahmed does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 17.
Kopikare teaches further comprising: in response to sending the follow-up survey questions directed to a customer via the customer interface (The server device 102 sends the survey to one or more recipient client devices 118 [0051]),
receiving, by the system via the customer interface, respective follow-up survey responses to the follow-up survey questions (the response prediction system receives a survey comprising one or more survey questions ... Furthermore, based on the predicted response quality, the response prediction system generates suggested changes (e.g., ... amend questions, add translations for certain questions, amend a question for device compatibility, etc.) and provides the suggested changes at a client device associated with an administrator);
based on the respective follow-up survey responses (As illustrated in FIG. 6A, the response quality summary 606 includes an overall score for the survey and an indication of suggested changes for the survey [0091]), generating, by the system, a modified distinct signature that is different from the distinct signature and that represents an updated derived capability profile representing at least one of the functional capabilities of the group of functions or the other functional capabilities that are different from the functional capabilities of the group of functions (the response prediction system 106 presents updated response quality and updated suggested changes to the administrator 304 via a response evaluation graphical user interface ... The response evaluation graphical user interface 902 includes various elements including ... response quality class scores 906 a-906 c (collectively “response quality class scores 906”), ... actual urgency ratings element 910 [0113]);
based on the updated derived capability profile (generate an updated survey report with predictions and suggested changes based on data specific to the published survey [0023]), generating, by the system, a summarized output (The survey evaluation notification 600 includes a response quality summary 606 [0090]) that identifies at least one of a capability of the cloud computing environment and infrastructure, a determined risk impeding a performance of the cloud computing environment and infrastructure, or a suggested change corresponding to the cloud computing environment and infrastructure to facilitate an optimization the cloud computing environment and infrastructure (As illustrated in FIG. 6A, the response quality summary 606 includes an overall score for the survey and an indication of suggested changes for the survey. For example, as illustrated, the response prediction system 106 indicates that the survey scored “great” overall [0091]); and
sending, by the system via the customer interface, the summarized output directed to the customer (As illustrated in FIG. 6A, the publish element 608 comprises an interactive element. Based on interaction with the publish element 608, the digital survey system 104 publishes the survey to the recipient devices [0091]).
The same motivation to combine dependent claim 17 applies here.
Regarding claim 18 Li, Ahmed and Kopikare teaches the method of claim 17, Kopikare wherein respective portions of at least one of the initial survey questions or the follow-up survey questions comprise respective free-form text fields (question types ... free text [0082]), and
wherein at least one of the generating of the distinct signature or the generating of the modified distinct signature comprises: converting, utilizing natural language processing via a machine learning process (The response prediction system may utilize a combination of a statistical regression model and a machine learning model to analyze historical survey data to predict response quality based on the extracted characteristics [0025]),
the respective free-form text fields into a text output comprising respective keywords representing content of the free-form text fields (For example, as illustrated, the response prediction system 106 indicates that the survey scored “great” overall. The response prediction system 106 can present other general ratings including “perfect,” “good,” “fair,” “poor,” etc [0091]); and
based on the text output and the respective keywords, generating at least one of the distinct signature or the modified distinct signature (As mentioned previously, the response prediction system 106 updates predicted response quality based on actual received responses [0097]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li and Ahmed to incorporate the teachings of Kopikare for the benefit of creating functional and useful surveys that result in functional and useful response data (Kopikare [0003])
Regarding claim 20, Li and Ahmed teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 19, Li teaches wherein the operations further comprise: in response to sending the follow-up survey questions directed to the user device (The survey conductor module 156 transmits the survey for the user computing device 120 of each of the users in the survey sample (S214) [0033]),
receiving respective follow-up survey responses to the follow-up survey questions (The graphical user interface 122 can be any type of application that contains the interface necessary to receive a survey from a survey conductor module 156 [0021]);
sending the output directed to the user device (The communication module 132 is capable of transmitting a survey from the survey conductor module 156 to the user computing device 120 to be displayed by the graphical user interface 122 [0023]).
Ahmed teaches wherein the distinct signature is a first distinct signature (DT (Data Transfer): Range value 0-3; Service Level Agreement (SLA): Range value 0-3; Data location and Investigative Support (DL&IS): Range value 0-3; Authentication and Access Control (A&AC): Range value 0-3, Table 1, pg. 321), and
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li to incorporate the teachings of Ahmed for the benefit of consumers who start using cloud computing services to confirm whether the product satisfies their needs (Ahmed, pg. 316, second para.)
Li and Ahmed does not explicitly teach based on the respective follow-up survey responses, generating a second distinct signature that numerically represents an updated derived capability profile of at least one of the group of functions or the different group of functions, based on the updated derived capability profile, generating an output comprising a summary of at least one of a capability of the cloud computing environment and infrastructure, a determined risk impeding a performance of the cloud computing environment and infrastructure, or a suggested change corresponding to the cloud computing environment and infrastructure to facilitate an optimization the cloud computing environment and infrastructure;
Kopikare teaches based on the respective follow-up survey responses, generating a second distinct signature that numerically represents an updated derived capability profile of at least one of the group of functions or the different group of functions (The response prediction system 106 analyzes the received responses and extracts actual response quality class scores based on the received responses. [0103]),
based on the updated derived capability profile (generate an updated survey report with predictions and suggested changes based on data specific to the published survey [0023]), generating an output comprising a summary (The survey evaluation notification 600 includes a response quality summary 606 [0090]) of at least one of a capability of the cloud computing environment and infrastructure, a determined risk impeding a performance of the cloud computing environment and infrastructure, or a suggested change corresponding to the cloud computing environment and infrastructure to facilitate an optimization the cloud computing environment and infrastructure (As illustrated in FIG. 6A, the response quality summary 606 includes an overall score for the survey and an indication of suggested changes for the survey [0091]); and
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li and Ahmed to incorporate the teachings of Kopikare for the benefit of creating functional and useful surveys that result in functional and useful response data (Kopikare [0003])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAM MOSUNMOLA GODO whose telephone number is (571)272-8670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Michelle T. Bechtold can be reached on (571) 431-0762. 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.
/M.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2148
/MICHELLE T BECHTOLD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2148
Prosecution Insights