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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant states: “As shown above, Applicant has amended the independent claims to further clarify the claimed managed system and the local subscription manager. Applicant respectfully submits that the amended independent claims are no longer directed to an abstract idea (namely, a mental process) under Step 2A, prong one of the Office's Subject Matter Eligibility Test. The burden has now shifted back to the Office to establish a new prima facie case of ineligibility under substantive law for the amended independent claims. See MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, for at least these reasons, Applicant submits that the amended independent claims (and all of their dependent claims) are patent eligible. Accordingly, withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.”
Examiner states: Examiner respectfully disagrees. The newly added limitations amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exceptions. Therefore, because the limitations do not amount to significantly more, Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
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 1-21 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.
Regarding independent claims the limitations identify a limit, a bundle, and workload, as drafted, recites functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as cited above as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process.
Thus, these limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional limitations: hardware bundle, computer implemented services, hardware resources, processor, a first and second computer, and computer readable medium. The additional elements, including providing implemented services based on an updated bungle being an insignificant extra solution activity, are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of hardware bundle, computer implemented services, hardware resources, processor, and computer readable medium, amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception.
The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Examiner recommends including limitations that implement the identified abstract ideas to perform an improvement upon the art that relates to the updated hardware bundle and disruptive workload.
Regarding claim 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19 the limitations of identifying and selection, prior to identifying making a determination, determining based upon a type, are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claims. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more.
Regarding claim 9, 10, 21 the limitation of details of a hardware resources and bundles and the location of the hardware resources and screening of communications, details of a disruptive workload are considered mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception Accordingly, the additional element recited in claim 3 fails to provide a practical application under prong 2, or amount to significantly more under step 2B.
Regarding claim 5, 6, 8, 15, 20 the limitations of injecting a workload, sending a workload, what a bundle is adapted to do and reporting changes, are nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2.
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, 5, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellum (Pub. No. US 2023/0267010) in view of Fan (Pub. No. US 2025/0004897).
Claim 1, 11, Wellum teaches “a method for managing computer implemented services provided by a first computer configured as a managed system, the method comprising: identifying, by a second computer configured as by a local subscription manager (i.e as further described below regarding Wellum collection routines [0219] As will also be explained in greater detail, an instance of a collection routine may be executed within each of the VMs 2707 to monitor various aspects of the performance of the computing cluster 2777, and to transmit indications of those observations to the one or more data devices 2300, via the network 2999, to be assembled into observation data concerning the computing cluster 2777. ), that a subscription limit for a subscription has been reached ([0077] During operation of the resulting computing cluster of physical or virtual computing devices, instances of collection routine(s) installed within each physical or virtual computing device of the computing cluster may monitor various aspects of their operation, and generate portions of observation data that may be assembled together to form more of a complete picture of various aspects of the operation of both individual devices, and of the whole computing cluster. Indications of levels of various aspects of the operation of the computing cluster, and/or of individual devices therein, may be compared to minimum, maximum and/or expected levels that were specified by the customer for those aspects. Notifications may be automatically provided to the customer where a level of an aspect of operation of the computing cluster repeatedly rises to a specified maximum level and/or falls to a specified minimum level as a mechanism to inform the customer that one or more of their specified minimum and/or maximum levels may need to be reconsidered. Alternatively or additionally, notifications may be automatically provided to the customer where the observed level of an aspect of operation of the computing cluster repeatedly deviates by more than a specified degree from an expected level specified by the customer.); identifying, by the local subscription manager and after identifying that the subscription limit for the subscription has been reached, a hardware bundle of the first computer based on the subscription ([0081] Repeating the configuration of the computing cluster may proceed in a manner that is quite similar to the initial configuration of the computing cluster. In so doing, the guidance provided to the customer may now include the use of a model that has been updated and/or replaced based on the observation data associated with the computing cluster that is now being re-configured, instead of a model based on observations of one or more other similar computing clusters. Also, depending on the observation data, the customer may be prompted to at least reconsider various minimum, maximum and/or expected levels of various aspects of the computing cluster that the customer had originally specified. Further, depending on the observation data and/or improvements made to the model that is used, the customer may be guided to the option making a selection of a template, once again, to serve as at least a starting point for re-configuring the computing cluster. In so doing, it may be that a different template is recommended than the one that was recommended during the initial configuration of the computing cluster. Alternatively or additionally, the customer may be guided to use the configuration settings that were previously made, but with prompting to reconsider one or more particular settings.); identifying, by the local subscription manager, a disruptive workload based on the subscription ([0285] Among the configuration settings recorded within the instance of settings data 3535 for the new computing cluster 2777, there may be specifications of various events where the customer is to be informed that one or more aspects of the new computing cluster 2777 may not be functioning properly. Among such specified events may be instances of a level of performance failing to meet a specified minimum level, instances of a level of performance decreasing to within a specified degree of a specified minimum level, instances of a level of resource consumption exceeding a specified maximum level, and/or instances of a level of resource consumption increasing to within a specified degree of a specified maximum level. Also among the configuration settings may be specified selections of what personnel are to be provided with notices of such events and/or by what form of communication. [0080] Further during operation, it may be that the generated and assembled observation data is used to provide one or more visualizations of aspects of the operation of the computing cluster to the customer. Such visualizations may also include indications of the results of comparing the observation data to specified minimum, maximum and/or expected levels, and/or of comparing the observation data to predictions made by the model most recently used during configuration, as an approach to guiding the customer's attention toward potential issues that may have been identified during operation of the computing cluster.); initiating, by the local subscription manager, performance of the disruptive workload by the hardware bundle to obtain an updated hardware bundle ([0286] In some embodiments, it may be that the receipt of such notices concerning such specified events causes the customer to interact with the configuration device 2500 (either directly, or through a UI device 2900, as depicted) to be provided with a view of observed aspects of the operation of the new computing cluster 2777 that are associated with the event(s) about which they were provided notice. [0287] In some embodiments, it may be that portions of the observation data 3739 concerning the new computing cluster 2777 are used by the configuration device 2500 to update or replace the cluster model 3339 that was last used in configuring the new computing cluster 2777. Such updating and/or replacement may be triggered by instances of one or more observed levels of performance and/or observed resource consumption varying from what was predicted or would be predicted by the cluster model 3339 by at least a preselected degree.); and causing, by the local subscription manager, the first computer to provide computer implemented services using the updated hardware bundle ([0288] In some of such embodiments in which the cluster model 3339 last used in configuring the new computing cluster 2777 is either updated or replaced, it may be that such updating or replacement triggers the configuration device 2500 to transmit a notice to the customer that recommends that the configuration of the new computing cluster 2777 be repeated. This may provide a mechanism by which at least various ones of the checks of the configuration settings for the new computing cluster 2777 are repeated using the now updated or replaced cluster model 3339 to determine whether one or more of those configuration settings should be changed such that the new computing cluster 2777 needs to be redeployed to be given the benefit of improved configuration settings. [0087] Data transmission network 100 may also include computing environment 114. Computing environment 114 may be a specialized computer or other machine that processes the data received within the data transmission network 100.)”.
However, Wellum may not explicitly teach details regarding the new limitations.
Fan teaches “the second computer being an out of band management controller that is physically installed within the first computer and that operates independently from the first computer ([Abstract] The computer management system comprises a management server, an out-of-band hardware module, installed on each of the one or more computers, and an administration device. In the present embodiment, the out-of-band hardware modules 24 and 24a act as a client to connect to the management server 22 through the Internet 200 and upload the data to the management server 22 such that the management server 22 is capable of determining a hardware and/or software status of the computers C1 and C2 based on the data and storing the same in the memory. However, in other embodiments, the out-of-band hardware modules 24 and 24a may determine a hardware and/or software status of the computers C1 and C2 based on the data and act as a client to connect to the management server 22 through the Internet 200 and upload the determined hardware and/or software status of the computers C1 and C2 to the management server 22. [0058] When the hardware status indicates an abnormality of one or more hardware components in the computer, the administration device may instruct the out-of-band hardware module in the computer to fix the abnormality.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Fan with the teachings of Wellum in order to provide a system that teaches utilizing out-of-band controller. The motivation for applying Fan teaching with Wellum teaching is to provide a system that allows for improved use of monitoring abnormalities and provide solutions for those abnormalities. Wellum, Fan are analogous art directed towards configuration of resources based on monitored data. Together Wellum, Fan teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Fan with the teachings of Wellum by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 2, 12, 17, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Wellum teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the disruptive workload comprises: identifying at least one directly manageable hardware resource of the hardware bundle that is directly managed by the second computer ([0213] Although not specifically depicted, it may be that at least one control routine 1354 may include logic to implement a form of management of the containers 1336 based on the Kubernetes container management platform promulgated by Could Native Computing Foundation of San Francisco, Calif., USA. In such embodiments, containers 1336 in which executable routines 1334 of requested analyses may be instantiated within “pods” (not specifically shown) in which other containers may also be instantiated for the execution of other supporting routines. Such supporting routines may cooperate with control routine(s) 1354 to implement a communications protocol with the control device(s) 1350 via the network 1399 (e.g., a message passing interface, one or more message queues, etc.). Alternatively or additionally, such supporting routines may serve to provide access to one or more storage repositories (not specifically shown) in which at least data objects may be stored for use in performing the requested analyses. [Fig. 13] routine 1334 providing management of resources as implemented by out-of-band controller of Fan); identifying at least one indirectly manageable hardware resource of the hardware bundle that is indirectly managed by the second computer through the at least one directly manageable hardware resource of the hardware bundle; and selecting the disruptive workload based on the at least one directly manageable hardware resource and the indirectly manageable hardware resource ([0123] Communications grid computing system (or just “communications grid”) 400 also includes one or more worker nodes. Shown in FIG. 4 are six worker nodes 410-420. Although FIG. 4 shows six worker nodes, a communications grid according to embodiments of the present technology may include more or less than six worker nodes. The number of worker nodes included in a communications grid may be dependent upon how large the project or data set is being processed by the communications grid, the capacity of each worker node, the time designated for the communications grid to complete the project, among others. Each worker node within the communications grid 400 may be connected (wired or wirelessly, and directly or indirectly) to control nodes 402-406. Therefore, each worker node may receive information from the control nodes (e.g., an instruction to perform work on a project) and may transmit information to the control nodes (e.g., a result from work performed on a project). Furthermore, worker nodes may communicate with each other (either directly or indirectly).)”.
Claim 5, 15, 20 the combination teaches the claim, wherein Wellum teaches “the method of claim 2, wherein initiating the performance of the disruptive workload comprises: injecting workload data of the disruptive workload to the directly manageable hardware resource to initiate performance of the disruptive workload by the hardware bundle ([0288] In some of such embodiments in which the cluster model 3339 last used in configuring the new computing cluster 2777 is either updated or replaced, it may be that such updating or replacement triggers the configuration device 2500 to transmit a notice to the customer that recommends that the configuration of the new computing cluster 2777 be repeated. This may provide a mechanism by which at least various ones of the checks of the configuration settings for the new computing cluster 2777 are repeated using the now updated or replaced cluster model 3339 to determine whether one or more of those configuration settings should be changed such that the new computing cluster 2777 needs to be redeployed to be given the benefit of improved configuration settings.)”.
Claim 21, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Wellum teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein the hardware bundle comprises hardware resources of the first computer that are used to execute workloads associated with the subscription, and the disruptive workload, when executed by the first computer, limits the first computer from using the hardware resources of the first computer that are used to execute the workloads associated with the subscription from being used by the first computer to execute the workloads associated with the subscription ([0286] In some embodiments, it may be that the receipt of such notices concerning such specified events causes the customer to interact with the configuration device 2500 (either directly, or through a UI device 2900, as depicted) to be provided with a view of observed aspects of the operation of the new computing cluster 2777 that are associated with the event(s) about which they were provided notice. [0287] In some embodiments, it may be that portions of the observation data 3739 concerning the new computing cluster 2777 are used by the configuration device 2500 to update or replace the cluster model 3339 that was last used in configuring the new computing cluster 2777. Such updating and/or replacement may be triggered by instances of one or more observed levels of performance and/or observed resource consumption varying from what was predicted or would be predicted by the cluster model 3339 by at least a preselected degree.)”.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellum, Fan, in view of Metsch (Pub. No. US 2022/0124009).
Claim 16, “a managed system, comprising: directly manageable hardware resources; a processor; and a local subscription manager adapted to perform operations for managing computer implemented services provided by the managed system, the operations comprising: identifying that a subscription limit for a subscription has been reached; identifying a hardware bundle based on the subscription; identifying a disruptive workload based on the subscription; initiating performance of the disruptive workload by the hardware bundle to obtain an updated hardware bundle; and providing computer implemented services using the updated hardware bundle” is similar to claim 1 and therefore rejected with the same references and citations.
However, may not explicitly teach the other resources.
Metsch teaches “indirectly manageable hardware resources ([0065] In the context of FIG. 5, the pod controller/container manager, container orchestrator, and individual nodes may provide a security enforcement point. However, tenant isolation may be orchestrated where the resources allocated to a tenant are distinct from resources allocated to a second tenant, but Edge owners cooperate to ensure resource allocations are not shared across tenant boundaries. Or, resource allocations could be isolated across tenant boundaries, as tenants could allow “use” via a subscription or transaction/contract basis. In these contexts, virtualization, containerization, enclaves and hardware partitioning schemes may be used by Edge owners to enforce tenancy. Other isolation environments may include: bare metal (dedicated) equipment, virtual machines, containers, virtual machines on containers, or combinations thereof.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Metsch with the teachings of Wellum, Fan in order to provide a system that teaches different types of resources. The motivation for applying Metsch teaching with Wellum, Fan teaching is to provide a system that allows for improved use of resources. Wellum, Fan, Metsch are analogous art directed towards processing of workloads. Together Wellum, Fan, Metsch teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Metsch with the teachings of Wellum, Fan by known methods and gained expected results.
Claims 3, 4, 13, 14, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellum, Fan, in view of Carroll (Pub. No. US 2021/0117561).
Claim 3, 13, 18 the combination may not explicitly teach the claim.
Carroll teaches “the method of claim 2, further comprising: prior to identifying the disruptive workload: making a determination that the hardware bundle does not support direct adjustment of use of the hardware bundle for services under the subscription; and performing the identifying of the disruptive workload based on the determination ([0027] When an access request is made, access request interaction component 158 illustratively handles interactions with ABAC computing system 116 by providing the access request 118, and receiving the response 120. It can provide the response to tenant-specific policy enforcement system 152. Different tenants may choose to handle different responses 120, differently. For instance, one tenant may desire that a response that denies access to an item of content generate an explanatory message indicating why access was denied. Another tenant may desire that the response simply return an error message, or simply not perform the requested access. These are just examples, and tenant-specific policy enforcement system 152 can be configured on a tenant-specific basis, on an application-specific basis, or in other ways. [0028] RBAC component 150 can perform conventional role-based access control or other types of access control. Thus, when an access request is received, access management system 130 can perform a plurality of different types of access control, by way of example.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Carroll with the teachings of Wellum, Fan in order to provide a system that teaches management of resources. The motivation for applying Carroll teaching with Wellum, Fan, teaching is to provide a system that allows for improved resource control. Wellum, Fan, Carroll are analogous art directed towards processing of workloads. Together Wellum, Fan, Carroll teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Carroll with the teachings of Wellum, Fan, by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 4, 14, 19, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Carroll teaches “the method of claim 3, wherein the determination is made based on a type of the directly manageable hardware resource ([0035] Tag type generation component 200 illustratively surfaces an interface that allows an administrative user (through administrative interaction 122) to define certain types or groups of tags. Tag generation component 202 surfaces an interface that allows an administrative user to generate those tags, and tag application component 204 allows an administrative user to apply those tags to the different entities to which they correspond. For instance, component 204 allows an administrative user to apply tags to users, data, resources, environments, devices, etc.)”.
Rationale to claim 3 is applied here.
Claims 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellum, Fan in view of Jreij (Pub. No. US 2022/0179700).
Claim 6, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitations.
Jreij teaches “the method of claim 5, wherein injecting the workload data comprises:
sending the workload data to the directly manageable hardware resource via a sideband
channel between the local subscription manager and the directly manageable
hardware resource ([0075] The compute resources interface (112) may also support sideband communications between the system control processors (114), the processors (106), and/or the processor dedicated memory (104). Consequently, the system control processors (114) may be able to monitor the operations of these other devices to identify the workloads being performed by composed information handling systems using these hardware devices.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Jreij with the teachings of Wellum, Fan in order to provide a system that teaches sideband communication. The motivation for applying Jreij teaching with Wellum, Fan teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Wellum, Fan, Jreij are analogous art directed towards processing of workloads. Together Wellum, Fan, Jreij teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Jreij with the teachings of Wellum, Fan by known methods and gained expected results.
Claims 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellum, Fan in view of Jain (Pub. No. US 2024/0419481).
Claim 7, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitations.
Jain teaches “the method of claim 2, wherein identifying the disruptive workload comprises:
identifying a level of reduction in service by the hardware bundle based on the subscription; and selecting, based on the level of reduction in service, a type of the disruptive workload based on the level of reduction ([0015] One or more of the functional blocks of the integrated circuit belong in a different performance category or bin than other functional blocks due to manufacturing variations across semiconductor dies. The multiple functional blocks provide the same functionality, but provide different circuit behavior due to manufacturing variations between them. An example of the different circuit behavior is transistor speed, which can affect the supported maximum operating clock frequency. The hardware, such as circuitry, of a scheduler assigns work blocks to the compute circuits that process the assigned work blocks. In some implementations, the program state of a work block includes an indication that specifies a type of workload performed by the work block. Workloads of work blocks include at least a computation intensive workload and a memory access intensive workload. The scheduler assigns work blocks marked as having a computation intensive workload to functional blocks that provide higher performance with higher performance operating parameters. For example, these functional blocks are from a bin of functional blocks that are capable of operating at a higher operational clock frequency than functional blocks of another lower performance bin. Therefore, these functional blocks provide higher throughput for work blocks having a computation intensive workload.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Jain with the teachings of Wellum, Fan in order to provide a system that teaches different workloads. The motivation for applying Jain teaching with Wellum, Fan teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Wellum, Fan, Jain are analogous art directed towards processing of workloads. Together Wellum, Fan, Jain teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Jain with the teachings of Wellum, Fan by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 8, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Wellum teaches “the method of claim 7, wherein the updated hardware bundle is adapted to report changes in workload processing capacity to hardware resources tasked with managing workload governed by the subscription, the reporting of the changes being performed dynamically and responsive to an instance of the disruptive workload performed by the updated hardware bundle ([0348] Further, and as also previously discussed, where the accuracy of previous predictions has proven to not meet the preselected degree accuracy such that the generation of a new cluster model has been triggered (or an existing cluster model has been updated), then a recommendation may be provided to the customer that configuration of the new computing cluster 2777-2 be repeated, thereby providing an opportunity to gain the benefits of the greater accuracy that is likely to be provided by using such a new or updated cluster model (e.g., the new cluster model 3339-2 generated specifically for the new computing cluster 2777-2).)”.
Claims 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellum, Fan in view of Molloy (Pub. No. 2020/0364638).
Claim 10, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Molloy teaches “the method of claim 9, wherein the directly manageable hardware resource is upstream of communications of the indirectly manageable hardware resource, and is adapted to at least partially selectively screen the communications from the indirectly manageable hardware
resource to manage functionality of the indirectly manageable hardware resource ([0089] Where the IT portfolio optimization engine 130 can automatically migrate the IT service workloads to the new environment corresponding to the optimized IT portfolio 190, the IT portfolio optimization engine 130 continues with facilitating the IT service 205 to execute the IT service workload as migrated in the new environment. For example, the IT portfolio optimization engine 130 update workload allocation configuration parameter with the IT service with a path information to the new environment, or provide a credential or otherwise facilitate authentication for the IT service to access the new information, as well as redirect any incoming IT service workload to the new environment. [0090] Subsequent to completing an optimization exercise, the IT portfolio optimization engine 130 can monitor performance of the optimized IT services and evaluate how well or poorly the IT portfolio optimization engine 130 perform with the previous exercises. The IT portfolio optimization engine 130 can apply a certain performance threshold value, configured in the IT portfolio policy 131, to determine whether or not a certain optimization exercise can be used in the training data for the IT portfolio forecasting model 135.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Molloy with the teachings of Wellum, Fan in order to provide a system that teaches details of monitoring. The motivation for applying Molloy teaching with Wellum, Fan teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Wellum, Fan, Molloy are analogous art directed towards processing of workloads. Together Wellum, Fan, Molloy teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Molloy with the teachings of Wellum, Fan by known methods and gained expected results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYNUEL S AQUINO whose telephone number is (571)272-7478. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3759. 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.
/WYNUEL S AQUINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights