DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application submitted on January 31, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “wherein the state of the datacenter entities in the datacenter are.” It should read -- wherein the state of the datacenter entities in the datacenter is --.
Claim 5 recites “validating the states of the datacenter entities” It should read -- further comprising validating the state of the datacenter entities --.
Claim 5 recites “the datacenter entities are in proper states.” It should read --the datacenter entities are in proper state --.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the addition of at least one datacenter entity". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “an addition of at least one datacenter entity” for the purpose of further examination.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the removal of at least one datacenter entity". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “a removal of at least one datacenter entity” for the purpose of further examination.
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 1-8, 11, 12-15 and 16-20 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, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 1 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is a process (a series of steps or acts), and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites the limitations:
determining, based on a state of datacenter entities in the datacenter, the datacenter entities being changed in response to the request;
determining one or more execution dependencies associated with the datacenter entities being changed in response to the request, wherein the execution dependencies need to be completed before execution of the update;
upon determining that all the execution dependencies have been completed,
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, the limitations in (a), (b) and (c) can be reasonably interpreted as mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) for the determining step, a human can read state information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to determine a state of datacenter entities. Similarly, the limitation (b) for the determining step, a human can read execution dependencies information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to determine execution dependencies associated with the datacenter entities. And the limitation (c) for the determining step, a human can read execution dependencies information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion to determine that all the execution dependencies have been completed. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
receiving, at a computer system, a request for update of a datacenter on a cloud platform, wherein the datacenter includes a hierarchy of datacenter entities, and wherein the update includes a change to the datacenter entities in the datacenter;
initiating execution of the execution dependencies; and
executing an orchestration workflow to update the datacenter on the cloud platform.
The additional element (1) is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering, as such, the additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional element amounts to necessary data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The additional elements (2) and (3) fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The additional elements recite only the idea of initiating execution of the execution dependencies and executing an orchestration workflow without details on how they are accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the initiating execution of the execution dependencies and executing an orchestration workflow solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
receiving, at a computer system, a request for update of a datacenter on a cloud platform, wherein the datacenter includes a hierarchy of datacenter entities, and wherein the update includes a change to the datacenter entities in the datacenter;
initiating execution of the execution dependencies; and
executing an orchestration workflow to update the datacenter on the cloud platform.
The additional element (1) simply appends a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to receive a request for update of a datacenter on a cloud platform. Therefore, the limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
The additional elements (2) and (3) do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional elements attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem of initiating execution of the execution dependencies and executing an orchestration workflow with no restriction on how the executing is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the execution, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent an insignificant extra-solution activity and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more for at least the reasons stated above.
Claim 2 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein determining that the execution dependencies have been completed includes receiving, from at least one of the execution dependencies, an event completion notification.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 3 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein determining that the execution dependencies have been completed includes determining an expiration of a predetermined time period for at least one of the execution dependencies, the predetermined time period being specified by a service level agreement for the at least one of the execution dependencies.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 4 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the state of the datacenter entities in the datacenter are determined by accessing state information for the datacenter entities in the datacenter from a database storing state information for the datacenter entities in the datacenter.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 5 recites the limitation:
(a) further comprising validating the states of the datacenter entities being changed prior to initiating execution of the execution dependencies, wherein validating the states of the datacenter entities includes determining the datacenter entities are in proper states for being changed.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 6 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein determining the datacenter entities to be changed in response to the request includes comparing a list of datacenter entities in the request to a list of datacenter entities for the datacenter.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 7 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the request is received via an application programming interface or a server interface with the computer system.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 8 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the change to the datacenter entities in the datacenter includes an addition of at least one datacenter entity to the datacenter or a removal of at least one datacenter entity from the datacenter.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
These claims are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claims 2-6 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 2 and 7 recite further additional elements that fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they are mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and fail to integrated into practical application and they do not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites further additional elements fail to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and fails to integrated into practical application and it does not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 2-8 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 1-8 are therefore not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significant more.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 11 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is an article of manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 11 recites the limitations:
a. determining, based on a state of datacenter entities in the datacenter, the datacenter entities being changed in response to the request;
b. determining one or more execution dependencies associated with the datacenter entities being changed in response to the request, wherein the execution dependencies need to be completed before execution of the update; and
c. upon determining that all the execution dependencies have been completed,
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium having program instructions stored thereon that are executable by a computer system to cause the computer system to perform operations comprising:
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, the limitations in (a), (b) and (c) can be reasonably interpreted as mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) for the determining step, a human can read state information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to determine a state of datacenter entities. Similarly, the limitation (b) for the determining step, a human can read execution dependencies information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to determine execution dependencies associated with the datacenter entities. And the limitation (c) for the determining step, a human can read execution dependencies information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion to determine that all the execution dependencies have been completed. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
A non-transitory computer readable medium having program instructions stored thereon that are executable by a computer system to cause the computer system to perform operations comprising:
receiving a request for update of a datacenter located on a cloud platform, wherein the datacenter includes a hierarchy of datacenter entities built according to a declarative specification, and wherein the update includes a change to the datacenter entities in the datacenter;
initiating execution of the execution dependencies; and
executing an orchestration workflow to update the datacenter on the cloud platform according to the declarative specification and the request.
The additional element (1) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The non-transitory computer readable medium is used as a tool to perform the receiving, determining, initiating, and executing steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element (2) is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering and, as such, the additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional element amounts to necessary data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The additional elements (3) and (4) fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The additional elements recite only the idea of initiating execution of the execution dependencies and executing an orchestration workflow without details on how they are accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the initiating execution of the execution dependencies and executing an orchestration workflow solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium having program instructions stored thereon that are executable by a computer system to cause the computer system to perform operations comprising:
2. receiving a request for update of a datacenter located on a cloud platform, wherein the datacenter includes a hierarchy of datacenter entities built according to a declarative specification, and wherein the update includes a change to the datacenter entities in the datacenter;
3. initiating execution of the execution dependencies; and
4. executing an orchestration workflow to update the datacenter on the cloud platform according to the declarative specification and the request.
The additional element (1) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional element (2) simply appends a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to receive a request for update of a datacenter on a cloud platform. Therefore, the limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
The additional elements (3) and (4) do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional elements attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem of initiating execution of the execution dependencies and executing an orchestration workflow with no restriction on how the executing is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the execution, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent an insignificant extra-solution activity and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more for at least the reasons stated above.
Claim 12 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein determining that the execution dependencies have been completed includes:
(b) receiving, from at least one of the execution dependencies, an event completion notification; and
(c) determining an expiration of a predetermined time period specified by a service level agreement for at least one other of the execution dependencies.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 13 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the execution dependencies include steps, events, or activities that need to be completed in order for the orchestration workflow to be executed.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 14 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the orchestration workflow includes a combination of pipeline stages that are executed in succession to update the datacenter, wherein the datacenter is an existing datacenter on the cloud platform.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 15 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the execution dependencies include execution dependencies for the datacenter entities being changed and execution dependencies for start dependencies of the datacenter entities being changed.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
These claims are dependent on Claim 11, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 11.
Claims 12 recites further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 12 recites further additional elements that fail to meaningfully limit the claim because it is mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and fails to integrated into practical application and it does not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Claims 13 and 14 recite further additional elements that fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they are merely adding descriptions to mental process components, and thus they fail to integrated into practical applications and they do not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites further additional elements fail to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and fails to integrated into practical application and it does not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 12-15 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 11 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 11, 12-15 are therefore not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significant more.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 16 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 16 is directed to a system, which is a machine and/or manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 16 recites the limitations:
determining, based on a state of datacenter entities in the datacenter, the datacenter entities being changed in response to the request;
determining one or more execution dependencies associated with the datacenter entities being changed in response to the request, wherein the execution dependencies need to be completed before execution of the update;
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
at least one processor; and
memory having program instructions stored thereon that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, the limitations in (a) and (b) can be reasonably interpreted as mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) for the determining step, a human can read state information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to determine a state of datacenter entities. And the limitation (b) for the determining step, a human can read execution dependencies information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to determine execution dependencies associated with the datacenter entities. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
at least one processor; and
memory having program instructions stored thereon that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving a request for update of a datacenter located on a cloud platform, wherein the datacenter includes a hierarchy of datacenter entities built according to a declarative specification, and wherein the update includes a change to the datacenter entities in the datacenter;
transmitting indications for execution of the execution dependencies;
assessing whether all the execution dependencies have been completed; and
executing an orchestration workflow to update the datacenter on the cloud platform based on assessing that all the execution dependencies have been completed.
The additional elements (1) and (2) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The processor and memory are used as tools to perform the receiving, determining, transmitting, assessing, and executing steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional elements (3), (4) and (5) are mere data gathering/transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/transmitting and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/transmitting. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The additional element (6) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The additional element recites only the idea of executing an orchestration workflow without details on how they are accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the executing an orchestration workflow solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
at least one processor; and
memory having program instructions stored thereon that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving a request for update of a datacenter located on a cloud platform, wherein the datacenter includes a hierarchy of datacenter entities built according to a declarative specification, and wherein the update includes a change to the datacenter entities in the datacenter;
transmitting indications for execution of the execution dependencies;
assessing whether all the execution dependencies have been completed; and
executing an orchestration workflow to update the datacenter on the cloud platform based on assessing that all the execution dependencies have been completed.
The additional elements (1) and (2) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements (2), (4) and (5) simply append a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to receive a request for update of a datacenter on a cloud platform, transmit indications for indications for execution of the execution dependencies and access whether all the execution dependencies have been completed. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
The additional element (6) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of executing an orchestration workflow with no restriction on how the executing is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the execution, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent an insignificant extra-solution activity and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more for at least the reasons stated above.
Claim 17 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the program instructions include instructions executable by the at least one processor to cause the system to assess whether the execution dependencies have been completed by receiving, from at least one of the execution dependencies, an event completion notification.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 18 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the program instructions include instructions executable by the at least one processor to cause the system to assess whether the execution dependencies have been completed by determining an expiration of a predetermined time period specified by a service level agreement with at least one of the execution dependencies.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 19 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the program instructions include instructions executable by the at least one processor to cause the system to determine the state of the datacenter entities in the datacenter by accessing state information from a database storing state information for all the datacenter entities in the datacenter.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 20 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the change to the datacenter entities in the datacenter includes the addition of at least one datacenter entity to the datacenter or the removal of at least one datacenter entity from the datacenter.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
These claims are dependent on Claim 16, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 16.
Claims 18 and 19 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 17 recites further additional elements that fail to meaningfully limit the claim because it is mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and fails to integrated into practical application and it does not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Claim 20 recites further additional elements fail to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and fails to integrated into practical application and it does not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 17-20 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 16 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 16-20 are therefore not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significant more.
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, 2, 6-10, 11, 13-15, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220222079 (hereinafter “Vergara”) in view of US 20070174494 (hereinafter “Bonwick”).
As per Claim 1, Vergara discloses:
A method, comprising:
receiving, at a computer system, a request for update of a datacenter on a cloud platform (Figure 5: 120) ([Abstract], “Computing systems, for example, multi-tenant systems deploy software artifacts in data centers created in a cloud platform using a cloud platform infrastructure language that is cloud platform independent (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0031], “According to an embodiment, the system receives an auditing request for a specific change in a particular service deployed in the datacenter [receiving, at a computer system, a request for update of a datacenter on a cloud platform] (emphasis added).”), wherein the datacenter (Figure 5: 510a) includes a hierarchy of datacenter entities (Paragraph [0026], “The datacenter is generated based on a cloud platform independent declarative specification comprising a hierarchy of data center entities [wherein the datacenter includes a hierarchy of datacenter entities] (emphasis added).”), and wherein the update includes a change to the datacenter entities in the datacenter (Paragraph [0131], “The software release management module 230 receives a modification of the set of services executing on the datacenter, for example, addition of a service to a datacenter entity, deletion of a service from a datacenter entity, changes to configuration of a service, changes to a software artifact associated with a service, and so on. (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0058], “Examples of data center entities include data centers, service groups, services, teams, environments, and schemas [and wherein the update includes a change to the datacenter entities in the datacenter] (emphasis added).”);
determining, based on a state of datacenter entities in the datacenter, the datacenter entities being changed in response to the request (Paragraph [0031], “Responsive to receiving the auditing request, the system identifies a status of deployment of the particular service from the change management system and provides the identified status in response to the auditing request [determining, based on a state of datacenter entities in the datacenter, the datacenter entities being changed in response to the request] (emphasis added).”);
determining one or more execution dependencies associated with the datacenter entities being changed in response to the request (Paragraph [0056], “The change processing module 350 identifies requests for changes made to services installed in a datacenter and tracks information describing the changes (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0090], “Accordingly, the dependencies between services represent a dependency graph and the cloud platform starts running the services in an order determined based on the dependency graph such that if service A depends on service B, the service B is started before service A is started [determining one or more execution dependencies associated with the datacenter entities being changed in response to the request] (emphasis added).”),
wherein the execution dependencies need to be completed before execution of the update (Paragraph [0090], “The cloud platform independent declarative specification specifies dependencies between services, for example, start dependencies for each service listing all services that should be running when a particular service is started [wherein the execution dependencies need to be completed before execution of the update] (emphasis added).”);
executing an orchestration workflow to update the datacenter on the cloud platform (Paragraph [0099], “The software release management module 230 executes 760 the cloud platform specific detailed deployment pipeline to deploy software artifacts based on the received code [executing an orchestration workflow to update the datacenter on the cloud platform] (emphasis added).”).
Vergara does not explicitly disclose:
initiating execution of the execution dependencies; and
upon determining that all the execution dependencies have been completed,
However, Bonwick discloses:
initiating execution of the execution dependencies (Paragraph [0051], “In one or more embodiments of the invention, I/O commands corresponding to leaf nodes (508B, 510B, 512B, 514B) in the I/O dependency graph are executed concurrently before other I/O commands in the I/O dependency graph [initiating execution of the execution dependencies] (emphasis added).”); and
upon determining that all the execution dependencies have been completed (Paragraph [0050], “In accordance with one or more embodiments of the invention, children of an I/O command in the I/O dependency graph correspond to the I/O command's dependencies. Further, an I/O command cannot be executed until all children of the I/O command have completed execution (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0051], “Once all dependencies of a specific I/O command have been resolved, that I/O command is allowed to begin execution without waiting on other I/O commands on which it does not depend [upon determining that all the execution dependencies have been completed] (emphasis added).”),
Vergara and Bonwick are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bonwick into the teaching of Vergara to include “initiating execution of the execution dependencies; and upon determining that all the execution dependencies have been completed,” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to improve performance of the system by executing operations based on dependency relationships (Bonwick, paragraph [0033]).
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Vergara does not explicitly disclose:
wherein determining that the execution dependencies have been completed includes receiving, from at least one of the execution dependencies, an event completion notification.
However, Bonwick discloses:
wherein determining that the execution dependencies have been completed includes receiving, from at least one of the execution dependencies, an event completion notification (Paragraph [0036], “The field corresponds to a counter that is decremented each time a child reports that it is ready. Next, the I/O command determines whether any children remain that are not ready (Step 403). If so, the I/O command must wait for all children to be ready (Step 405) before proceeding to the next step [wherein determining that the execution dependencies have been completed includes receiving, from at least one of the execution dependencies, an event completion notification] (emphasis added).”).
Bonwick is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bonwick into the teaching of Vergara to include “wherein determining that the execution dependencies have been completed includes receiving, from at least one of the execution dependencies, an event completion notification” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve performance of the system by executing operations based on dependency relationships (Bonwick, paragraph [0033]).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Vergara further discloses:
wherein determining the datacenter entities to be changed in response to the request includes comparing a list of datacenter entities in the request to a list of datacenter entities for the datacenter (Paragraph [0027], “The system receives a cloud platform independent artifact version map associating data center entities of the data center with versions of software artifacts targeted for deployment on the datacenter entities (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0028], “In an embodiment, the system receives a modified artifact version map and determines the modification of the set of services executing on the datacenter by comparing the received artifact version map with a previously received artifact version map [wherein determining the datacenter entities to be changed in response to the request includes comparing a list of datacenter entities in the request to a list of datacenter entities for the datacenter] (emphasis added).”).
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Vergara further discloses:
wherein the request is received via an application programming interface or a server interface with the computer system (Paragraph [0115], “The master pipeline may be driven based on an on-demand manner, for example, by invoking a request using application programming interface (API) of the deployment module 210 [wherein the request is received via an application programming interface or a server interface with the computer system] (emphasis added).”).
As per Claim 8, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Vergara further discloses:
wherein the change to the datacenter entities in the datacenter includes an addition of at least one datacenter entity to the datacenter or a removal of at least one datacenter entity from the datacenter (Paragraph [0131], “The software release management module 230 receives a modification of the set of services executing on the datacenter, for example, addition of a service to a datacenter entity, deletion of a service from a datacenter entity, changes to configuration of a service, changes to a software artifact associated with a service, and so on [wherein the change to the datacenter entities in the datacenter includes an addition of at least one datacenter entity to the datacenter or a removal of at least one datacenter entity from the datacenter] (emphasis added).”).
As per Claim 9, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Vergara further discloses:
wherein the orchestration workflow includes: generating one or more pipelines for changing the datacenter entities on the datacenter (Paragraph [0108], “In one embodiment, the pipeline generator module 320 generates pipelines in a hierarchical fashion based on the hierarchy of the data center entities of the data center [wherein the orchestration workflow includes: generating one or more pipelines for changing the datacenter entities on the datacenter] (emphasis added).”);
generating a deployment manifest associating the datacenter entities being changed with versions of software artifacts targeted for deployment on the datacenter entities (Paragraph [0049], “The software release management module 230 recompiles the inputs to generate a new cloud platform specific detailed pipeline 255 that deploys the versions of software releases according to the new artifact version map 225 (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0050], “The artifact version map may also be referred to as a deployment manifest, a version manifest, a software release map, or a software artifact version map. [generating a deployment manifest associating the datacenter entities being changed with versions of software artifacts targeted for deployment on the datacenter entities] (emphasis added).”),
wherein a software artifact is associated with a datacenter entity being changed (Paragraph [0027], “The system receives a cloud platform independent artifact version map associating data center entities of the data center with versions of software artifacts targeted for deployment on the datacenter entities [wherein a software artifact is associated with a datacenter entity being changed] (emphasis added).”)
executing the pipelines in conjunction with the deployment manifest to update the datacenter on the cloud platform according to the request (Paragraph [0055], “The pipeline generator module 320 processes the master pipelines in conjunction with the artifact version map received as input to generate a detailed pipeline for a target cloud platform [executing the pipelines in conjunction with the deployment manifest to update the datacenter on the cloud platform according to the request] (emphasis added).”).
As per Claim 10, the rejection of Claim 9 is incorporated; and Vergara further discloses:
wherein the pipelines include only pipelines for the datacenter entities being changed (Paragraph [0136], “The changes may include new services that need to be installed on specific datacenter entities, versions of existing services that need to be changed (e.g., upgraded) on specific datacenter entities, services that need to be removed from specific datacenter entities, and so on. The pipeline generator generates a master pipeline to implement the requested changes to the service configurations [wherein the pipelines include only pipelines for the datacenter entities being changed] (emphasis added).”).
Claims 11 is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claims 1). Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1.
As per Claim 13, the rejection of Claim 11 is incorporated; and Vergara further discloses:
wherein the execution dependencies include steps, events, or activities that need to be completed in order for the orchestration workflow to be executed (Paragraph [0090], “The cloud platform independent declarative specification specifies dependencies between services, for example, start dependencies for each service listing all services that should be running when a particular service is started [wherein the execution dependencies include steps, events, or activities that need to be completed in order for the orchestration workflow to be executed] (emphasis added).”).
As per Claim 14, the rejection of Claim 11 is incorporated; and Vergara further discloses:
wherein the orchestration workflow includes a combination of pipeline stages that are executed in succession to update the datacenter (Paragraph [0114], “FIG. 10 shows an example master pipeline according to an embodiment. The master pipeline is a hierarchical pipeline where each stage of a pipeline may comprise a pipeline with detailed instructions for executing the stage. [wherein the orchestration workflow includes a combination of pipeline stages that are executed in succession to update the datacenter] (emphasis added).”),
wherein the datacenter is an existing datacenter on the cloud platform (Paragraph [0114], “The master pipeline hierarchy may mirror the datacenter hierarchy [wherein the datacenter is an existing datacenter on the cloud platform] (emphasis added).”).
As per Claim 15, the rejection of Claim 11 is incorporated; and Vergara further discloses:
wherein the execution dependencies include execution dependencies for the datacenter entities being changed and execution dependencies for start dependencies of the datacenter entities being changed (Paragraph [0090], “The cloud platform independent declarative specification specifies dependencies between services, for example, start dependencies for each service listing all services that should be running when a particular service is started [wherein the execution dependencies include execution dependencies for the datacenter entities being changed and execution dependencies for start dependencies of the datacenter entities being changed] (emphasis added).”).
As per Claim 16, Vergara discloses:
A system, comprising:
at least one processor (Figure 16: 1602); and
Memory (Figure 16: 1606) having program instructions stored thereon that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving a request for update of a datacenter located on a cloud platform (Figure 5: 120) ([Abstract], “Computing systems, for example, multi-tenant systems deploy software artifacts in data centers created in a cloud platform using a cloud platform infrastructure language that is cloud platform independent (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0031], “According to an embodiment, the system receives an auditing request for a specific change in a particular service deployed in the datacenter [receiving a request for update of a datacenter located on a cloud platform] (emphasis added).”), wherein the datacenter (Figure 5: 510a) includes a hierarchy of datacenter entities built according to a declarative specification (Paragraph [0026], “The datacenter is generated based on a cloud platform independent declarative specification comprising a hierarchy of data center entities [wherein the datacenter includes a hierarchy of datacenter entities built according to a declarative specification] (emphasis added).”), and wherein the update includes a change to the datacenter entities in the datacenter (Paragraph [0131], “The software release management module 230 receives a modification of the set of services executing on the datacenter, for example, addition of a service to a datacenter entity, deletion of a service from a datacenter entity, changes to configuration of a service, changes to a software artifact associated with a service, and so on. (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0058], “Examples of data center entities include data centers, service groups, services, teams, environments, and schemas [and wherein the update includes a change to the datacenter entities in the datacenter] (emphasis added).”);
determining, based on a state of datacenter entities in the datacenter, the datacenter entities being changed in response to the request (Paragraph [0031], “Responsive to receiving the auditing request, the system identifies a status of deployment of the particular service from the change management system and provides the identified status in response to the auditing request [determining, based on a state of datacenter entities in the datacenter, the datacenter entities being changed in response to the request] (emphasis added).”);
determining one or more execution dependencies associated with the datacenter entities being changed in response to the request (Paragraph [0056], “The change processing module 350 identifies requests for changes made to services installed in a datacenter and tracks information describing the changes (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0090], “Accordingly, the dependencies between services represent a dependency graph and the cloud platform starts running the services in an order determined based on the dependency graph such that if service A depends on service B, the service B is started before service A is started [determining one or more execution dependencies associated with the datacenter entities being changed in response to the request] (emphasis added).”),
wherein the execution dependencies need to be completed before execution of the update (Paragraph [0090], “The cloud platform independent declarative specification specifies dependencies between services, for example, start dependencies for each service listing all services that should be running when a particular service is started [wherein the execution dependencies need to be completed before execution of the update] (emphasis added).”);
transmitting indications for execution of the execution dependencies (Paragraph [0149], “The software release management module 230 sends 1430 the status of execution of the pipeline to the change management system [transmitting indications for execution of the execution dependencies] (emphasis added).”);
executing an orchestration workflow to update the datacenter on the cloud platform […] (Paragraph [0099], “The software release management module 230 executes 760 the cloud platform specific detailed deployment pipeline to deploy software artifacts based on the received code [executing an orchestration workflow to update the datacenter on the cloud platform] (emphasis added).”).
Vergara does not explicitly disclose:
assessing whether all the execution dependencies have been completed; and
executing an orchestration workflow to update the datacenter on the cloud platform based on assessing that all the execution dependencies have been completed.
However, Bonwick discloses:
assessing whether all the execution dependencies have been completed (Paragraph [0036], “The field corresponds to a counter that is decremented each time a child reports that it is ready. Next, the I/O command determines whether any children remain that are not ready (Step 403). If so, the I/O command must wait for all children to be ready (Step 405) before proceeding to the next step [assessing whether all the execution dependencies have been completed] (emphasis added).”); and
[…] based on assessing that all the execution dependencies have been completed (Paragraph [0036], “The field corresponds to a counter that is decremented each time a child reports that it is ready. Next, the I/O command determines whether any children remain that are not ready (Step 403). If so, the I/O command must wait for all children to be ready (Step 405) before proceeding to the next step [ based on assessing that all the execution dependencies have been completed] (emphasis added).”);
Vergara and Bonwick are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bonwick into the teaching of Vergara to include “assessing whether all the execution dependencies have been completed; and executing an orchestration workflow to update the datacenter on the cloud platform based on assessing that all the execution dependencies have been completed.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to improve performance of the system by executing operations based on dependency relationships (Bonwick, paragraph [0033]).
Claim 17 and 20 are system claims corresponding to the method claims hereinabove (Claim 2 and 8, respectively). Therefore, Claims 17 and 20 are rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 2 and 8, respectively.
Claims 3, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vergara in view of Bonwick as applied to claims 1, 11 and 16 above, and further in view of US 20140196048 (hereinafter “Mathur”).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Vergara discloses “determining that the execution dependencies have been completed” and “at least one of the execution dependencies,” but the combination of Vergara and Bonwick does not explicitly disclose:
wherein determining that the execution dependencies have been completed includes determining an expiration of a predetermined time period for at least one of the execution dependencies,
the predetermined time period being specified by a service level agreement for the at least one of the execution dependencies.
However, Mathur discloses:
[…] determining an expiration of a predetermined time period […] (Paragraph [0074], “In further implementations, a given command can choose to just terminate instead of sleeping if the delay instructed by the health framework exceeds a certain threshold. For example, a given script or command may have an associated maximum Service Level Agreement (SLA) time in which the script or command is expected to complete [determining an expiration of a predetermined time] (emphasis added).”),
the predetermined time period being specified by a service level agreement […] (Paragraph [0074], “In further implementations, a given command can choose to just terminate instead of sleeping if the delay instructed by the health framework exceeds a certain threshold. For example, a given script or command may have an associated maximum Service Level Agreement (SLA) time in which the script or command is expected to complete [the predetermined time period being specified by a service level agreement] (emphasis added).”).
Mathur is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Mathur into the combined teachings of Vergara and Bonwick to include “wherein determining that the execution dependencies have been completed includes determining an expiration of a predetermined time period for at least one of the execution dependencies, the predetermined time period being specified by a service level agreement for the at least one of the execution dependencies.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use Service Level Agreement time to fail the process and free resources to improve performance.
As per Claim 12, the rejection of Claim 11 is incorporated; and Vergara does not disclose:
receiving, from at least one of the execution dependencies, an event completion notification.
However, Bonwick discloses:
receiving, from at least one of the execution dependencies, an event completion notification (Paragraph [0036], “The field corresponds to a counter that is decremented each time a child reports that it is ready. Next, the I/O command determines whether any children remain that are not ready (Step 403). If so, the I/O command must wait for all children to be ready (Step 405) before proceeding to the next step [wherein determining that the execution dependencies have been completed includes receiving, from at least one of the execution dependencies, an event completion notification] (emphasis added).”).
Bonwick is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bonwick into the teaching of Vergara to include “wherein determining that the execution dependencies have been completed includes receiving, from at least one of the execution dependencies, an event completion notification” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve performance of the system by executing operations based on dependency relationships (Bonwick, paragraph [0033]).
The combination of Vergara and Bonwick discloses “at least one other of the execution dependencies,” but the combination of Vergara and Bonwick does not explicitly disclose:
determining an expiration of a predetermined time period specified by a service level agreement for at least one other of the execution dependencies.
However, Mathur discloses:
determining an expiration of a predetermined time period specified by a service level agreement […] (Paragraph [0074], “In further implementations, a given command can choose to just terminate instead of sleeping if the delay instructed by the health framework exceeds a certain threshold. For example, a given script or command may have an associated maximum Service Level Agreement (SLA) time in which the script or command is expected to complete [determining an expiration of a predetermined time period specified by a service level agreement] (emphasis added).”).
Mathur is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Mathur into the combined teachings of Vergara and Bonwick to include “determining an expiration of a predetermined time period specified by a service level agreement for at least one other of the execution dependencies.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use Service Level Agreement time to fail the process and free resources to improve performance.
Claim 18 is a system claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 3). Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 3.
Claims 4, 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vergara in view of Bonwick as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of US 20220147336 (hereinafter “Joshi”).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Vergara and Bonwick does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the state of the datacenter entities in the datacenter are determined by accessing state information for the datacenter entities in the datacenter from a database storing state information for the datacenter entities in the datacenter.
However, Joshi discloses:
wherein the state of the datacenter entities in the datacenter are determined by accessing state information for the datacenter entities in the datacenter from a database storing state information for the datacenter entities in the datacenter (Paragraph [0084], “In some implementations, before updating the state management information, the cloud manager 402 may check to ensure that the state reported by a service domain is valid for the current state the service domain has in the database [wherein the state of the datacenter entities in the datacenter are determined by accessing state information for the datacenter entities in the datacenter from a database storing state information for the datacenter entities in the datacenter] (emphasis added).”).
Joshi is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Joshi into the combined teachings of Vergara and Bonwick to include “wherein the state of the datacenter entities in the datacenter are determined by accessing state information for the datacenter entities in the datacenter from a database storing state information for the datacenter entities in the datacenter.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the communication process during update (Joshi, paragraph [0005]).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Vergara and Bonwick disclose “prior to initiating execution of the execution dependencies,” but the combination of Vergara and Bonwick does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising validating, the states of the datacenter entities being changed prior to initiating execution of the execution dependencies, wherein validating the states of the datacenter entities includes determining the datacenter entities are in proper states for being changed.
However, Joshi discloses:
further comprising validating, the states of the datacenter entities being changed […], wherein validating the states of the datacenter entities includes determining the datacenter entities are in proper states for being changed (Paragraph [0084], “In some implementations, before updating the state management information, the cloud manager 402 may check to ensure that the state reported by a service domain is valid for the current state the service domain has in the database [further comprising validating, the states of the datacenter entities being changed prior to initiating execution of the execution dependencies, wherein validating the states of the datacenter entities includes determining the datacenter entities are in proper states for being changed.] (emphasis added).”).
Joshi is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Joshi into the combined teachings of Vergara and Bonwick to include “further comprising validating, the states of the datacenter entities being changed prior to initiating execution of the execution dependencies, wherein validating the states of the datacenter entities includes determining the datacenter entities are in proper states for being changed.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the communication process during update (Joshi, paragraph [0005]).
Claim 19 is a system claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 4). Therefore, Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US 2013/0055247 (hereinafter “HILTGEN”) discloses managing software components in a datacenter having virtualized components while considering dependencies between related components and compatibility limitations.
US 2015/0378712 (hereinafter “CAMERON”) discloses updating the selection of relevant software bundles in a datacenter while considering the dependencies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Yanbin Li whose telephone number is 571-272-0906. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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 more 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.
/Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2191
/WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191