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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for convince of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references cited in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections
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 1-13 are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to “A computer-implemented method, executed on a computer device, comprising: defining a migration pathway for a current migration project, wherein the migration pathway includes one or more migration portions; and assigning a complexity score to each of the one or more migration portions, thus defining one or more complexity scores.:” this points to a method, and is therefore a process, which is one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
defining a migration pathway for a current migration project, wherein the migration pathway includes one or more migration portions; and
assigning a complexity score to each of the one or more migration portions, thus defining one or more complexity scores.
All of which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore reciting a mental process.
Accordingly, claim 1 recited a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The additional element recited in claim : “executed on a computer device”, lacks any described mechanism to explain how the defining or scoring is being performed. The computer is invoked only in the preamble as a generic environment and isn’t used in any technically meaningful way within the steps. The claim also fails to recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, all in all making the steps untethered to any technical improvement, specific implementation or transformation. See MPEP 2106.05(d)
Step 2B:
The additional element: “executed on a computer device” recites a generic computer component that performs routine and conventional function that does not add significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(d)
The combination of these additional elements amounts to a method comprising steps which can be performed mentally, implemented by generic computing components, and comprising a step of insignificant extra-solution and well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Therefore, the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to add an inventive concept to the claim.
Consequently, claim 1 as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions and the claim is not eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 2 is not eligible.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 3 is not eligible.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 4 is not eligible.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 5 recites The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising: assigning a project index to the current migration project that defines the relative complexity of the current migration project based, at least in part, upon the one or more complexity scores which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion, with the aid of pen, paper, or a computer, and therefore reciting a mental process.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 5 is not eligible.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 5.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 5, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 6 is not eligible.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 5, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 5. Further, claim 7 recites The computer-implemented method of claim 5 further comprising: defining staffing levels for the current migration project based, at least in part, upon the project index. which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion, with the aid of pen, paper, or a computer, and therefore reciting a mental process.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 5, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 7 is not eligible.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 7, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 7. Further, claim 8 recites The computer-implemented method of claim 7 wherein defining staffing levels for the current migration project based, at least in part, upon the project index includes: defining staffing levels for a plurality of phases of the current migration project based, at least in part, upon the project index. which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion, with the aid of pen, paper, or a computer, and therefore reciting a mental process.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 7, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 8 is not eligible.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 9 recites The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising: effectuating the current migration project via one or more agents. which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion, with the aid of pen, paper, or a computer, and therefore reciting a mental process.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 9 is not eligible.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 9, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 9. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 9, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 10 is not eligible.
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 10, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 10. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 10, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 11 is not eligible.
Claim 12 is dependent on claim 10, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 10. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 10, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 12 is not eligible.
Claim 13 is dependent on claim 10, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 10. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 10, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 13 is not eligible.
Claims 14-26 recite substantially the same limitations as those recited in claims 1-13, respectively, applied to the method of claim 14. Thus, for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1-13, claims 14-26 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are not eligible.
Claims 27-39 recite substantially the same limitations as those recited in claims 1-13, respectively, applied to the method of claim 14. Thus, for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1-13, claims 27-39 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are not eligible.
Claims 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is drawn to signals per se. A transitory signal, while physical and real, "does not possess concrete structure" and "is not composed of matter." MPEP 2106.03. The present specification defines the product as anything such as “an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, device, or propagation medium. Specification, ¶ 91. Accordingly, claims 14-26 are directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed “computer program product” is interpreted to include transitory signal embodiments.
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, 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a)(2) as being unpatentable by Ratnapuri (US 2023/0196237 A1) in view of Dixon (US 2005/0033624 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Ratnapuri teaches defining a migration pathway for a current migration project, wherein the migration pathway includes one or more migration portions; (0092-0093) mentions the usage of a migration strategy to determine the best path to be used for the identified asset. Figure 4 is used as a planning dashboard used to plan how the migration will be split. According to the Specification, the migration pathway is defined by a local source equating to an application and a cloud target, which is demonstrated in [0014-0017] of Ratnapuri and shown in figure 11, which highlights a dashboard used to monitor this process.)
and assigning a [complexity] score to each of the one or more migration portions, thus defining one or more complexity scores. ([0094] of Ratnapuri describes assigning scores to migration strategies, (the Examiner would like to point out that these function the same as migration portions) )
Ratnapuri fails to disclose however Dixon teaches teach complexity scores. ([0066-00667] Fig. 5 (Dixon) showcases the assignment of a complexity score to an application based on different portions related to the application)
Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine both the process of assigning scores to migration strategies with assigned scores of Ratnapuri with complexity scores of Dixon, respectively so that decisions on what to migrate can account for the complexity of the migration (see Dixon pargraphs 96-97).
Regarding claim 4, Dixon teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein each of the one or more complexity scores define the relatively complexity of each of the one or more migration portions. ([0097] it is explained that the application assessment score is used to determine the order of migration, as “the least critical and least complex applications should be migrated first, and the more critical and complex applications should be relatively later migrated”. To this point, [0010] the specification explains that complexity scores are used to aid in the movement of migration projects elaborates on each type of migration portion, highlighting that each refers to the process of moving)
Claims 14, 17, 27, and 30 recite substantially the same limitations as those recited in claims 1 and 4 respectively. Thus, for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1 and 4, claims 14, 17, 27, and 30 are rejected as being unpatentable by Ratnapuri in view of Dixon for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1 and 4.
Claim 2-3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a)(2) as being unpatentable by Ratnapuri (US 2023/0196237 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Ratnapuri teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the current migration project includes an on-premise to cloud IT migration project. ([0014] states how the invention provides an efficient and effective method of migration for on-premises computing applications to a cloud computing environment and provides various embodiments that relate to a cloud IT migration project)
Regarding claim 3, Ratnapuri teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein each of the one or more migration portions concerns one or more of: an application migration task; a data migration task; and a general migration task. (This application teaches that a type of application migration task is the “assess[ing] its current state, dependencies, and requirements. This assessment helps in creating a migration plan that outlines the specific steps and goals for the migration.” [0017] of Ratnapuri highlights a planning and assessment aspect of the invention that assesses the readiness of the application to prepare for migration. This application also teaches that a type of data migration task is the “assess its current state, dependencies, and requirements.” This application also teaches that a type of general migration task includes, “Assess[ing] the current IT infrastructure, business needs, and objectives to create a comprehensive cloud migration strategy. This task involves understanding the organization's goals and determining which applications and services.” [0014] of Ratnapuri teaches how data and business needs are assessed and taken into consideration before migration.)
Claims 15-16 and 28-29 recite substantially the same limitations as those recited in claims 2-3 respectively. Thus, for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 2-3, claims 15-16 and 28-29 are rejected as being unpatentable by Ratnapuri for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 2-3.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a)(2) as being unpatentable by Dixon (US 2005/0033624 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Dixon teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising :assigning a project index to the current migration project that defines the relative complexity of the current migration project based, at least in part, upon the one or more complexity scores. (Figure 12 shows a “partition number”, signifying the potion sequence used to organize and define the projects. It is explained in [0042] that these partitions can be grouped and organized based on things like complexity. So, it is understood the “partition number” mention in Dixon functions the same as the index mentioned in the application)
Regarding claim 6, Dixon teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 5 wherein the project index has a normal value of one and the deviation of the project index above / below the normal value of one is indicative of the increased / decreased level of complexity of the current migration project with respect to a normal migration project. (Figure 12 shows a “partition number”, signifying the sequence used to organize and define the projects. It is explained in [0042] that these partitions can be grouped and organized based on things like complexity. Mentioned in Dixon, figures 2-8 “collectively depict an “Assessment” worksheet of an EXCEL® spreadsheet, wherein said “Assessment” worksheet performs the Application Assessment”. So, when added to figure 5, which shows varying complexity, context is added to explain how partition number is impacted in figure 12.)
Regarding claim 7, Dixon teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 5 further comprising: defining staffing levels for the current migration project based, at least in part, upon the project index. ([0042] explains that the partition definition, which is a means to how the assessed application are grouped in order to be migrated, define and refine the grouping based in part, of the staffing distribution levels of the project. This is what will later be used to determine the sequence used to order the partitions, based on their partition number [“index”])
Regarding claim 8, Dixon teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 7 wherein defining staffing levels for the current migration project based, at least in part, upon the project index includes: defining staffing levels for a plurality of phases of the current migration project based, at least in part, upon the project index. (Figure 1 shows a flowchart that describes two phases used in determining application for migration; the first comprising of the “partition definition” which is influenced and defined by staffing levels, and phase 2 which implements the migration based on the knowledge received in phase 1.)
Claims 18-21 and 31-34 recite substantially the same limitations as those recited in claims 5-8 respectively. Thus, for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 5-8, claims 18-21 and 31-34 are rejected as being unpatentable by Dixon for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 5-8.
Claims 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a)(2) as being unpatentable by Birkestrand (US 2018/0084037 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Birkestrand teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising: effectuating the current migration project via one or more agents ([0091] explains that partition migration function works in conjunction with migration agents)
Regarding claim 11, Birkestrand teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 10 wherein the file systems agent is executed on a customer's network associated with the current migration project. (Figure 6 shows an interface for communicating with one or more server systems, and specifically for communicating information required for configuring and migrating partitions in the server systems to perform useful work on behalf of clients. It can communicate over a network to do so. This is then leveraged in partition migration function to manage the selection of partitions to migrate and target systems to which the selected partitions are migrated, which is done in conjunction with migration agents, such as the file systems agent. Thus, due to the understanding established in the specification [0009] that the file system agent is executed on a customer’s network associated with the current migration project, it is understood that the function done in Birkestrand is being done in this application)
Regarding claim 12, Birkestrand teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 10 wherein the project agent is executed on a customer's network associated with the current migration project. (Figure 6 shows an interface for communicating with one or more server systems, and specifically for communicating information required for configuring and migrating partitions in the server systems to perform useful work on behalf of clients. It can communicate over a network to do so. This is then leveraged in partition migration function to manage the selection of partitions to migrate and target systems to which the selected partitions are migrated, which is done in conjunction with migration agents, such as the project agent. Thus, due to the understanding established in the specification [0009] that the project agent is executed on a customer’s network associated with the current migration project, it is understood that the function done in Birkestrand is being done in this application)
Regarding claim 13, Birkestrand teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 10 wherein the operational agent is executed on a service provider's network associated with the current migration project. (Figure 6 shows an interface for communicating with one or more server systems, and specifically for communicating information required for configuring and migrating partitions in the server systems to perform useful work on behalf of clients. It can communicate over a network to do so. This is then leveraged in partition migration function to manage the selection of partitions to migrate and target systems to which the selected partitions are migrated, which is done in conjunction with migration agents, such as the operational agent. Thus, due to the understanding established in the specification [0009] that the operational agent is executed on a service provider’s network associated with the current migration project, it is understood that the function done in Birkestrand is being done in this application)
Claims 22, 24-26 and 35, 37-39 recite substantially the same limitations as those recited in claims 9 and 11-13 respectively. Thus, for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 9 and 11-13, claims 22, 24-26 and 35, 37-39 are rejected as being unpatentable by Dixon for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 9 and 11-13
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to SAMUEL NWUHA whose telephone number is (571)272-9367. The examiner can
normally be reached Monday-Friday; 7:30 am - 5:00pm.
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,
Kevin Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
/SAMUEL OBINNA NNAJI NWUHA/
Examiner, Art Unit 2194
/KEVIN L YOUNG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights