DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-15 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/24/23 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: template generator, cloud builder module, asset inventory and Pub/Sub module in claims 11-13. The support can be found in paragraphs 46-53 of the Specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “template generator,” “cloud builder module,” “asset inventory,” and “Pub/Sub module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 11-13 recite a system comprising a managed compute platform comprising an event-driven application, a template generator, and a cloud builder module. Although the template generator and cloud builder module are subject to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, corresponding paragraphs in the Specification do not provide support for the structure or hardware implementation of those modules. Therefore, claims 11-13 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter as the system recites software-only implementation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wigglesworth et al. U.S. 2023/0297366 (hereinafter Wigglesworth) in view of Benassi et al. U.S. 2022/0210034 (hereinafter Benassi).
As per claim 1, 14 and 15, Wigglesworth discloses a method/non-transitory computer program product/CRM for automatically maintaining an Infrastructure as Code state of a resource space hosted on a cloud platform using a managed compute platform, template generator and cloud builder module (Wigglesworth: [0005]: run-time synchronization of IaC system), the method comprising:
detecting, by a dedicated script, an event associated with the resource space after a modification of said resource space that is relevant, the specific label indicating that the modification that is relevant has been applied (Wigglesworth: Fig. 8; [0097]-[0103]; [0005]: detect modification that is relevant, i.e. causes structural difference between updated model and the current model);
when the event is detected, then fill a template with required data (Wigglesworth: Fig. 8; [0097]-[0103]; [0005]: detect modification that requires update of template),
clone a remote repository from an internet hosting service (Wigglesworth: Fig. 8; [0097]-[0103]; and [0005]: update local cloned repository);
writing the template that is filled into a local repository (Wigglesworth: Fig. 8; [0097]-[0103]; [0005]: update local clone of a repository of the template with the new model);
pushing the local repository to the remote repository on the internet hosting service (Wigglesworth: Fig. 8; [0097]-[0103]; [0005]: push the update to remote repository);
when the event is deleted (Wigglesworth: Fig. 8; [0097]-[0103]; [0097]-[0101]: detect creation/modification/deletion on the model instance),
clone the remote repository from the internet hosting service (Wigglesworth: Fig. 8; [0097]-[0103]; [0005]: update cloned local repository to reflect the changes, including deletion event);
delete the template that is filled from the local repository (Wigglesworth: Fig. 8; [0102]: update the template according to type of operation, i.e. create/modify/delete; [0005]: update template in cloned local depository);
pushing the local repository to the remote repository on the internet hosting service (Wigglesworth: [0103]: push the changes back to the global code repository).
Wigglesworth does not explicitly disclose use of label and the required data containing at least one monitoring metric; monitor of the resource space by deploying the at least one monitoring metric upon detection of the pushing on the internet hosting service; and canceling the monitoring of the resource space upon deletion of the at least one monitoring metric. However, Benassi discloses generating and updating templates to include monitoring metrics and deploy to Infrastructure-as-Code system, wherein the templates are configured to monitor and collect metrics associated with the network elements (Benassi: Fig. 3 and [0096]-[0105]: generate templates to capture metrics; [0017]: operate IaC component infrastructure). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to selectively include specific template to modify existing IaC configuration when new resources are added/deleted based on detected event or request/label because Wigglesworth and Benassi are analogous art involving remote configuration of IaC components and the system of Wigglesworth already discloses collecting various metrics associated with IaC resources and components (Wigglesworth: [0097]: data collection; Figs. 10-16 and corresponding paragraphs showing monitoring and collection of various metrics). The motivation to combine would be to dynamically enable/disable monitoring of additional resources in response to modification events when templates are updated.
As per claim 2, Wigglesworth as modified discloses the method according to claim 1. Wigglesworth as modified further discloses wherein, during the deploying of the at least one monitoring metric, a state storing file is created or updated to contain a metrics configuration (Wigglesworth: Figs. 10-16 and corresponding paragraphs provide examples of update of metrics configuration).
As per claim 3, Wigglesworth as modified discloses the method according to claim 2. Wigglesworth as modified further discloses wherein, during the canceling of the monitoring, the metrics configuration is removed from the state storing file after a previous creation or update of said state storing file (Wigglesworth: [0097]-[0103]: templates are updated to reflect resource creation as well as deletion events, including associated metrics).
As per claim 4, Wigglesworth as modified discloses the method according to claim 1. Wigglesworth as modified further discloses further comprising saving relevant modifications applied to the resource space by updating a state file based on the pushing, after the deploying the at least one monitoring metric and/or after the canceling the monitoring, the state file containing at least one configuration data of the resource space (Wigglesworth: [0047] and [0097]-[0105]).
As per claim 5, Wigglesworth as modified discloses the method according to claim 1. Wigglesworth as modified further discloses wherein the modification applied to said resource space is relevant when the modification causes a discrepancy between a current state of the resource space and a stored configuration of said resource space (Wigglesworth: [0005]: determine structural difference between the updated model and the current model; [0097]-[0105]: detect events to create, modify, or delete resources).
As per claim 6, Wigglesworth as modified discloses the method according to claim 1. Wigglesworth as modified further discloses wherein the required data also contain identification data, the identification data being one or more of at least one identifier of the resource space, and at least one identifier of another resource space where the monitoring is hosted (Benassi: [0036]-[0038]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to identify metrics to be monitored or recorded based on resource space because Benassi and Wigglesworth both disclose monitoring and configuring IaC or remote resource components. The motivation to combine would be to determine relevant metrics to address system needs.
As per claim 7, Wigglesworth as modified discloses the method according to claim 1. Wigglesworth as modified further discloses wherein the dedicated script runs in an event-driven application of the cloud platform (Wigglesworth: [0005]: event-driven system; Fig. 3).
As per claim 8, Wigglesworth as modified discloses the method according to claim 7. Wigglesworth further discloses wherein the remote repository is cloned into the event-driven application (Wigglesworth: [0005]; [0097]-[0105]: clone remote repository and update template into local repository).
As per claim 9, Wigglesworth as modified discloses the method according to claim 1. Wigglesworth as modified further discloses wherein the template that is filled written into the local repository possesses a name containing at least one resource space identifier (Wigglesworth: Figs. 10-11; Benassi: [0036]-[0038]). Same rationale applies here as above in rejecting claim 6.
As per claim 10, Wigglesworth as modified discloses the method according to claim 2. Wigglesworth further discloses wherein the state storing file is stored on a dedicated storage data container of the cloud platform (Wigglesworth: Fig. 5; [0092]: remote/global code repository 525).
As per claim 11, Wigglesworth discloses a cloud platform configured to automatically maintain an Infrastructure as Code state of a resource space hosted on said cloud platform (Wigglesworth: [0005]: run-time synchronization of IaC system), the cloud platform comprising:
a managed compute platform comprising an event-driven application configured to run a dedicated script to detect event associated with the resource space after a relevant modification of said resource space, the event indicating that the relevant modification has been applied (Wigglesworth: Fig. 8; [0097]-[0103]; [0005]: detect modification that is relevant, i.e. causes structural difference between updated model and the current model);
clone a remote repository from an internet hosting service (Wigglesworth: Fig. 8; [0097]-[0103]; and [0005]: update local cloned repository);
when the event is detected, write a filled template into a local repository (Wigglesworth: Fig. 8; [0097]-[0103]; [0005]: detect modification that requires update of template);
when the specific label has been deleted, delete the filled template from the local repository (Wigglesworth: Fig. 8; [0102]: update the template according to type of operation, i.e. create/modify/delete; [0005]: update template in cloned local depository);
push the local repository to the remote repository on the internet hosting service (Wigglesworth: Fig. 8; [0097]-[0103]; [0005]: push the update to remote repository);
a template generator configured to, when the specific label is detected, fill a template with required data (Wigglesworth: Fig. 8; [0097]-[0103]; [0005]: detect modification that requires update of template);
a cloud builder module configured to when the event is detected, monitor the resource space service (Wigglesworth: Figs. 8 and 11: monitor different metrics and deployment of template).
Wigglesworth does not explicitly disclose use of label and the required data containing at least one monitoring metric; monitor of the resource space by deploying the at least one monitoring metric upon detection of the pushing on the internet hosting service; and canceling the monitoring of the resource space upon deletion of the at least one monitoring metric. However, Benassi discloses generating and updating templates to include monitoring metrics and deploy to Infrastructure-as-Code system, wherein the templates are configured to monitor and collect metrics associated with the network elements (Benassi: Fig. 3 and [0096]-[0105]: generate templates to capture metrics; [0017]: operate IaC component infrastructure). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to selectively include specific template to modify existing IaC configuration when new resources are added/deleted based on detected event or request/label because Wigglesworth and Benassi are analogous art involving remote configuration of IaC components and the system of Wigglesworth already discloses collecting various metrics associated with IaC resources and components (Wigglesworth: [0097]: data collection; Figs. 10-16 and corresponding paragraphs showing monitoring and collection of various metrics). The motivation to combine would be to dynamically enable/disable monitoring of additional resources in response to modification events when templates are updated.
As per claim 12, Wigglesworth as modified discloses the cloud platform according to claim 11. Wigglesworth further discloses wherein the cloud builder module is configured to trigger a resource space build based on the push to the internet hosting service for applying Infrastructure as Code service code for a future building of the resource space (Wigglesworth: [0005]: push to remote repository to perform the update in the cloud in the IaC system).
As per claim 13, Wigglesworth as modified discloses the cloud platform according to claim 11. Wigglesworth further discloses an asset inventory configured to detect the relevant modification of the resource space, and a Pub/Sub module configured to transfer a message, upon detection of the relevant modification of the resource space, to the managed compute platform (Wigglesworth: Fig. 8; [0097]-[0105]: detect events and start synchronization with local repository).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pandya et al. U.S. 12,464,003 discloses capturing and using application-level data to monitor a compute environment.
Lee et al. U.S. 2024/0028308 discloses image-based infrastructure-as-code processing based on predicted context.
Howley et al. U.S. 2023/0259390 discloses infrastructure as code service.
Kumar U.S. 2023/0118065 discloses application and infrastructure template management to easily create secure applications for enterprises.
Benassi U.S. 2022/0229637 discloses object-oriented infrastructure-as-code platform.
Choksi et al. U.S. 2022/0114023 discloses infrastructure as code deployment mechanism.
Neelakantam et al. U.S. 2022/0052910 discloses using infrastructure-as-code to update a cloud-based storage system.
Snehashis et al. U.S. 2021/0203549 discloses autonomous terraforming on cloud infrastructure.
White, III et al. U.S. 2021/0042096 discloses method for packaging infrastructure as code.
Hashimoto et al. U.S. 2020/0186416 discloses generating configuration files for configuring an information technology infrastructure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIN HON (ERIC) CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9am- 7pm.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
/SHIN-HON (ERIC) CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431