DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application submitted on October 30, 2023.
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 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 1-20 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:
identifying a solution that is requested to be provided using the deployment of data processing systems;
making a determination that the solution is incompatible with the deployment;
based on the determination: identifying at least one alternative solution for the solution based on an isometric subgraph analysis of the solution with respect to a plurality of alternative solutions;
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 identifying step, a human can read solution information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to identify a solution. The limitation (b) for the determination step, a human can read solution information related with the deployment stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to make a determination if the solution is incompatible with the deployment or not. The limitation (c) for the identifying step, a human can read alternative solution information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to identify at least one alternative solution. 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:
obtaining user input indicating agreement or disagreement with use of the at least one alternative solution;
in a first instance of the obtaining where the user input indicates agreement:
updating operation of the deployment based on the at least one alternative solution to obtain an updated deployment; and
providing computer-implemented services using the updated deployment.
The additional element (1) and (2) and are mere data gathering/transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activities. 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 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 updating the operation of the deployment and providing computer-implemented services without details on how they are accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how updating the operation of the deployment and providing computer-implemented services 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:
obtaining user input indicating agreement or disagreement with use of the at least one alternative solution;
in a first instance of the obtaining where the user input indicates agreement:
updating operation of the deployment based on the at least one alternative solution to obtain an updated deployment; and
providing computer-implemented services using the updated deployment.
The additional elements (1) and (2) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities 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 storing and retrieving information in memory and 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 obtain user input indicating agreement or disagreement with use of the at least one alternative solution. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do 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 update the operation of the deployment and provide computer-implemented services with no restriction on how the updating and providing are accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the updating and providing, and do 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 insignificant extra-solution activities and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-12 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) obtaining a request for the solution from a user device operated by a user.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 3 recites the limitation:
(a) obtaining, based on the request, requirements for the solution, the requirements specifying capabilities of the deployment for the solution to be compatible with the deployment;
(b) identifying available computing components of the deployment, the available computing components being available hardware or software components of the deployment capable of performing actions to facilitate the request; and
(c) making a comparison between the requirements for the solution and the available computing components of the deployment to identify whether the solution is compatible with the deployment.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 4 recites the limitation:
(a) identifying, based on the requirements for the solution, a minimum amount of computing components necessary to perform the solution; and
(b) identifying whether the available computing components meets or exceeds the minimum amount of computing components:
(c) in a first instance of the identifying where the available computing components does not meet or exceed the minimum amount of computing components:
(d) determining the solution is incompatible with the deployment.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 5 recites the limitation:
(a) building a first graph of the solution;
(b) obtaining a second graph of the at least one alternative solution of the plurality of alternative solutions;
(c) performing the isometric subgraph analysis, using the first graph and the second graph, to obtain at least one quantification of at least one similarity between the solution and the at least one alternative solution;
(d) obtaining a rank order for the at least alternative solution based on the at least one quantification of the at least one similarity;
(e) selecting an alternative solution of the at least one alternative solution based at least in part on the rank ordering; and
(f) providing the selected alternative solution to the user.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 6 recites the limitation:
(a) a plurality of nodes interconnected by edges, each node of the plurality of nodes being associated with a corresponding data processing system of the solution, each node comprising characteristics of the corresponding data processing system required by the solution, and the edges relating to required interactions between different data processing systems.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 7 recites the limitation:
(a) a plurality of nodes interconnected by edges, each node of the plurality of nodes being associated with a corresponding data processing system of the at least one alternative solution, each node comprising characteristics of the corresponding data processing system required by the at least one alternative solution, and the edges relating to required interactions between different data processing systems.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 8 recites the limitation:
(a) computing a similarity score for the second graph with respect to the first graph using an isometric subgraph analysis algorithm, the similarity score quantifying similarity between a structure of the second graph and a structure of the first graph; and
(b) obtaining, using the similarity score for each node, the at least one quantification of the at least one similarity between the solution and the at least one alternative solution.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 9 recites the limitation:
(a) providing a notification of the at least one alternative solution to the user device; and
(b) obtaining a response from the user device, the response indicating whether the user agrees with the least one alternative solution to be performed by the deployment.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 10 recites the limitation:
(a) in a second instance of the obtaining where the user input indicates disagreement:
(b) providing additional alternative solutions to the user to select at least one of the additional alternative solutions; or
(c) providing an option to add additional hardware components to the deployment to make the deployment compatible with the solution or another solution not presented to the user previously.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 11 recites the limitation:
(a) rank ordering the additional alternative solutions based on the at least one quantification of the at least one similarity to obtain rank ordered additional alternative solutions; and
(b) providing the rank ordered additional alternative solutions to the user for selection of at least one of the additional alternative solutions.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 12 recites the limitation:
(a) in an instance of the providing where the option to add the additional hardware components is agreed to by the user:
(b) obtaining user input indicating agreement with temporary use of the at least one of the additional alternative solutions pending integration of the additional hardware components into the deployment;
(c) updating operation of the deployment based on the at least one of the additional alternative solutions to obtain a temporary updated deployment; and
(d) providing computer-implemented services using the temporary updated deployment until the additional hardware components are integrated into the deployment.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
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 3-5, 8 and 11 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, 3, 5 and 8-12 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.
Claims 6 and 7 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 12 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 2-12 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 1-12 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 13 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 13 is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium, which is an article of manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 13 recites the limitations:
identifying a solution that is requested to be provided using the deployment of data processing systems;
making a determination that the solution is incompatible with the deployment;
based on the determination: identifying at least one alternative solution for the solution based on an isometric subgraph analysis of the solution with respect to a plurality of alternative solutions;
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:
A non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing operation of a deployment, the 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 identifying step, a human can read solution information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to identify a solution. The limitation (b) for the determination step, a human can read solution information related with the deployment stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to make a determination if the solution is incompatible with the deployment or not. The limitation (c) for the identifying step, a human can read alternative solution information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to identify at least one alternative solution. 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 machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing operation of a deployment, the operations comprising:
obtaining user input indicating agreement or disagreement with use of the at least one alternative solution;
in a first instance of the obtaining where the user input indicates agreement:
updating operation of the deployment based on the at least one alternative solution to obtain an updated deployment; and
providing computer-implemented services using the updated deployment.
The additional elements (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 machine-readable medium is used as tools to perform the identifying, determination, obtaining, updating and providing steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element (2) and (3) and are mere data gathering/transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activities. 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 elements (4) and (5) 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 updating the operation of the deployment and providing computer-implemented services without details on how they are accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how updating the operation of the deployment and providing computer-implemented services 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:
A non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing operation of a deployment, the operations comprising:
obtaining user input indicating agreement or disagreement with use of the at least one alternative solution;
in a first instance of the obtaining where the user input indicates agreement:
updating operation of the deployment based on the at least one alternative solution to obtain an updated deployment; and
providing computer-implemented services using the updated deployment.
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 elements (2) and (3) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities 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 storing and retrieving information in memory and 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 obtain user input indicating agreement or disagreement with use of the at least one alternative solution. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
The additional elements (4) and (5) 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 update the operation of the deployment and provide computer-implemented services with no restriction on how the updating and providing are accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the updating and providing, and do 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 mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activities, and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 14-17 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 14 recites the limitation:
(a) obtaining a request for the solution from a user device operated by a user.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 15 recites the limitation:
(a) obtaining, based on the request, requirements for the solution, the requirements specifying capabilities of the deployment for the solution to be compatible with the deployment;
(b) identifying available computing components of the deployment, the available computing components being available hardware or software components of the deployment capable of performing actions to facilitate the request; and
(c) making a comparison between the requirements for the solution and the available computing components of the deployment to identify whether the solution is compatible with the deployment.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 16 recites the limitation:
(a) identifying, based on the requirements for the solution, a minimum amount of computing components necessary to perform the solution; and
(b) identifying whether the available computing components meets or exceeds the minimum amount of computing components:
(c) in a first instance of the identifying where the available computing components does not meet or exceed the minimum amount of computing components:
(d) determining the solution is incompatible with the deployment.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 17 recites the limitation:
(a) building a first graph of the solution;
(b) obtaining a second graph of the at least one alternative solution of the plurality of alternative solutions;
(c) performing the isometric subgraph analysis, using the first graph and the second graph, to obtain at least one quantification of at least one similarity between the solution and the at least one alternative solution;
(d) obtaining a rank order for the at least alternative solution based on the at least one quantification of the at least one similarity;
(e) selecting an alternative solution of the at least one alternative solution based at least in part on the rank ordering; and
(f) providing the selected alternative solution to the user.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
These claims are dependent on Claim 13, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 13.
Claims 15-17 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 14, 15 and 17 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.
Therefore, Claims 14-17 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 13 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 13-17 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 18 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 18 is directed to a data processing system, which is a machine and/or manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 18 recites the limitations:
identifying a solution that is requested to be provided using the deployment of data processing systems;
making a determination that the solution is incompatible with the deployment;
based on the determination: identifying at least one alternative solution for the solution based on an isometric subgraph analysis of the solution with respect to a plurality of alternative solutions;
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:
a processor; and
a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing operation of a deployment, the 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 identifying step, a human can read solution information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to identify a solution. The limitation (b) for the determination step, a human can read solution information related with the deployment stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to make a determination if the solution is incompatible with the deployment or not. The limitation (c) for the identifying step, a human can read alternative solution information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to identify at least one alternative solution. 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 processor; and
a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing operation of a deployment, the operations comprising:
obtaining user input indicating agreement or disagreement with use of the at least one alternative solution;
in a first instance of the obtaining where the user input indicates agreement:
updating operation of the deployment based on the at least one alternative solution to obtain an updated deployment; and
providing computer-implemented services using the updated deployment.
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 the memory are used as tools to perform the identifying, determination, obtaining, updating and providing steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element (3) and (4) and are mere data gathering/transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activities. 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 elements (5) and (6) 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 updating the operation of the deployment and providing computer-implemented services without details on how they are accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how updating the operation of the deployment and providing computer-implemented services 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:
a processor; and
a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing operation of a deployment, the operations comprising:
obtaining user input indicating agreement or disagreement with use of the at least one alternative solution;
in a first instance of the obtaining where the user input indicates agreement:
updating operation of the deployment based on the at least one alternative solution to obtain an updated deployment; and
providing computer-implemented services using the updated deployment.
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 (3) and (4) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities 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 storing and retrieving information in memory and 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 obtain user input indicating agreement or disagreement with use of the at least one alternative solution. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
The additional elements (5) and (6) 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 update the operation of the deployment and provide computer-implemented services with no restriction on how the updating and providing are accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the updating and providing, and do 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 mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activities, and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 19-20 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 19 recites the limitation:
(a) obtaining a request for the solution from a user device operated by a user.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 20 recites the limitation:
(a) obtaining, based on the request, requirements for the solution, the requirements specifying capabilities of the deployment for the solution to be compatible with the deployment;
(b) identifying available computing components of the deployment, the available computing components being available hardware or software components of the deployment capable of performing actions to facilitate the request; and
(c) making a comparison between the requirements for the solution and the available computing components of the deployment to identify whether the solution is compatible with the deployment.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
These claims are dependent on Claim 18, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 18.
Claims 20 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, fails to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 19 and 20 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.
Therefore, Claims 19-20 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 18 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 18-20 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 1-3, 13-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210382798 (hereinafter “Ganesan”) in view of US 20210319360 (hereinafter “Vishnoi”), and further in view of US 20230062114 (hereinafter “Rout”).
As per Claim 1, Ganesan discloses:
identifying a solution that […] to be provided using the deployment of data processing systems (Paragraph [0001], “The cloud instances function similar to self-hosted servers but allow for increased flexibility. For example, cloud instances covering a wide range of hardware and software configurations can be made available on demand. Different server configurations can include different operating system, memory, processor, storage, and/or network configurations, among other configurable parameters (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0012], “Available optimal configurations are identified and the administrator is prompted to migrate the deployment to a suggested configuration that is more optimal and automatically identified [identifying a solution that […] to be provided using the deployment of data processing systems] (emphasis added).”;
making a determination that the solution is incompatible with the deployment (Paragraph [0036], “Utilizing the process of FIG. 5, a current cloud instance configuration is evaluated to determine whether there are additional cloud instance configurations using different cloud computing resource units that are both available and compatible for the current deployment scenario [making a determination that the solution is incompatible with the deployment] (emphasis added).”;
based on the determination: identifying at least one alternative solution for the solution […] the solution with respect to a plurality of alternative solutions (Paragraph [0036], “Utilizing the process of FIG. 5, a current cloud instance configuration is evaluated to determine whether there are additional cloud instance configurations using different cloud computing resource units that are both available and compatible for the current deployment scenario (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0040], “At 505, more optimal options are identified. Using user configurable resource evaluation criteria, more optimal cloud instance configurations are identified from the compatible options [based on the determination: identifying at least one alternative solution for the solution […] the solution with respect to a plurality of alternative solutions] (emphasis added).”;
obtaining user input indicating agreement or disagreement with use of the at least one alternative solution (Paragraph [0026], “At 207, migration to new cloud instances is performed. For example, an administrator is provided with a more optimal cloud instance configuration. Once a more optimal configuration is selected and/or approved, the administrator can schedule the automatic migration from the current configuration to the newly selected configuration (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0042], “At 601, approval for migration is received. For example, an administrator approves the migration from a current cloud instance to a new cloud instance using a different cloud computing resource unit (or cloud instance configuration) [obtaining user input indicating agreement or disagreement with use of the at least one alternative solution] (emphasis added).”;
in a first instance of the obtaining where the user input indicates agreement (Paragraph [0042], “At 601, approval for migration is received. For example, an administrator approves the migration from a current cloud instance to a new cloud instance using a different cloud computing resource unit (or cloud instance configuration) [in a first instance of the obtaining where the user input indicates agreement] (emphasis added).”:
updating operation of the deployment based on the at least one alternative solution to obtain an updated deployment (Paragraph [0042], “In various embodiments, multiple configurations exist that are more optimal than the current cloud instance and one of the configuration options is suggested as the best match for the intended deployment (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0047], “At 607, migration to a new cloud instance is performed. Using the approved configuration at 601 and the scheduled migration planned at 603, a migration is performed and a new cloud instance utilizing a different configuration replaces an old cloud instance [ updating operation of the deployment based on the at least one alternative solution to obtain an updated deployment] (emphasis added).”; and
Ganesan does not disclose:
[…] that is requested […]
[…] based on an isometric subgraph analysis of […]
providing computer-implemented services using the updated deployment.
However, Vishnoi discloses:
[…] that is requested […] (Paragraph [0151], “For example, a user may use a client device to request information or action from a chatbot as described in this disclosure [[…] that is requested […]] (emphasis added).”;
providing computer-implemented services using the updated deployment (Paragraph [0029], “Additionally, the query serving system updates the pool of deployments on a periodic basis to ensure that sufficient capacity is available so that requests for new skillbots can be served immediately (emphasis added). Paragraph [0131], “In certain examples, server 1012 may also provide other services or software applications that may include non-virtual and virtual environments [providing computer-implemented services using the updated deployment] (emphasis added).”.
Ganesan is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding cloud computing utilization measurements associated with a cloud computing instance. Vishnoi is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method that provides a fast, efficient, and scalable multi-tenant serve pool for chatbot systems. Thus, Ganesan and Vishnoi are 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 Vishnoi into the teaching of Ganesan to include “[…] that is requested […]; providing computer-implemented services using the updated deployment”. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enable the system can response to user utterance by providing updated service after updated deployment (Vishnoi, paragraph [0036]).
However, Rout discloses:
[…] based on an isometric subgraph analysis of […] (Paragraph [0154], “Returning to FIG. 20, at step/operation 2002, the predictive data analysis computing entity 106 determines the predicted cross-database structural similarity score based at least in part on the first graph-based database representation and the second graph-based database representation. In some embodiments, a score of isomorphism is computed to calculate the similarity between the graphs [[…] based on an isometric subgraph analysis of […]] (emphasis added).”;
Rout is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method for performing predictive data analysis with respect to structured data objects. Thus, Rout 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 Rout into the combined teachings of Ganesan and Vishnoi to include “[…] based on an isometric subgraph analysis of […]”. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enable the system to detect similarities across graph-based databases (Rout, paragraph [0122]).
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Ganesan discloses “the solution” but the combination of Ganesan and Rout does not explicitly disclose:
obtaining a request for […] from a user device operated by a user.
However, Vishnoi discloses:
obtaining a request for […] from a user device operated by a user (Paragraph [0151], “For example, a user may use a client device to request information or action from a chatbot as described in this disclosure [obtaining a request for […] from a user device operated by a user] (emphasis added).”.
Vishnoi is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method that provides a fast, efficient, and scalable multi-tenant serve pool for chatbot systems. Thus, Vishnoi 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 Vishnoi into the combined teachings of Ganesan and Rout to include “obtaining a request for […] from a user device operated by a user.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enable the system to receive request from a user.
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated;
Ganesan further discloses:
Obtaining, based on […] requirements for the solution, the requirements specifying capabilities of the deployment for the solution to be compatible with the deployment (Paragraph [0029], “A compatible cloud computing instance must meet the identified platform requirements. In some embodiments, the requirements are based on the capabilities of the cloud computing resource unit. […] In some embodiments, the platform requirements are stored in a configuration management database (CMDB) such as CMDB 113 of FIG. 1 and are retrieved from the CMDB when needed (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0036], “Utilizing the process of FIG. 5, a current cloud instance configuration is evaluated to determine whether there are additional cloud instance configurations using different cloud computing resource units that are both available and compatible for the current deployment scenario [Obtaining, based on […] requirements for the solution, the requirements specifying capabilities of the deployment for the solution to be compatible with the deployment] (emphasis added).”;
identifying available computing components of the deployment, the available computing components being available hardware or software components of the deployment capable of performing actions to facilitate […] (Paragraph [0018], “In some embodiments, service 111 utilizes an up to date list of eligible cloud computing resource unit options. For example, a query for eligible cloud computing resource unit options is performed to determine what cloud instance configuration options are available. Different available configurations can provide different hardware configurations such as different CPU, GPU, memory, disk, and/or network configurations, among others, as well as different software configurations. The available options are used to determine whether a compatible option is better suited for the current deployment scenario. [identifying available computing components of the deployment, the available computing components being available hardware or software components of the deployment capable of performing actions to facilitate […]] (emphasis added).”; and
making a comparison between the requirements for the solution and the available computing components of the deployment to identify whether the solution is compatible with the deployment (Paragraph [0025], “For example, an eligible cloud computing resource unit option can provide a more optimal computing experience based on the requirements specified at 201. In some embodiments, to determine if an option is better, the operating data gathered at 203 is compared to the requirements configured at 201 (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0036], “Utilizing the process of FIG. 5, a current cloud instance configuration is evaluated to determine whether there are additional cloud instance configurations using different cloud computing resource units that are both available and compatible for the current deployment scenario. [making a comparison between the requirements for the solution and the available computing components of the deployment to identify whether the solution is compatible with the deployment] (emphasis added).”;
but the combination of Ganesan and Rout does not explicitly disclose:
[…] the request […]
However, Vishnoi discloses:
[…] the request […] (Paragraph [0151], “For example, a user may use a client device to request information or action from a chatbot as described in this disclosure [[…] the request […]] (emphasis added).”.
Vishnoi is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method that provides a fast, efficient, and scalable multi-tenant serve pool for chatbot systems. Thus, Vishnoi 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 Vishnoi into the combined teachings of Ganesan and Rout to include “[…] the request […]” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enable the system to receive request from a user.
Claims 13-15 are non-transitory machine-readable medium claims corresponding to the method claims hereinabove (Claims 1-3, respectively). Therefore, Claims 13-15 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claims 1-3.
Claims 18-20 are data processing system claims corresponding to the method claims hereinabove (Claims1-3, respectively). Therefore, Claims 18-20 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1-3.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganesan in view of Vishnoi and Rout as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of US 20110321033 (hereinafter “Kelkar”).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 3 is incorporated; and Ganesan discloses “the solution”, and Ganesan further discloses:
identifying, based on the requirements for the solution, a minimum amount of computing components necessary to perform the solution (Paragraph [0018], “The available options are used to determine whether a compatible option is better suited for the current deployment scenario. For example, a CPU configuration with a faster processor and/or more cores may be better suited for a deployment where the CPU utilization of the current cloud instance is over-utilized (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0025] “For example, an eligible cloud computing resource unit option can provide a more optimal computing experience based on the requirements specified at 201 (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0028], “The ideal requirements can be specified as a threshold range, such as a minimum and a maximum value pair. For example, a CPU operating requirement can be specified as an ideal operating utilization threshold range [identifying, based on the requirements for the solution, a minimum amount of computing components necessary to perform the solution] (emphasis added).”; and
identifying whether the available computing components meets or exceeds the minimum amount of computing components (Paragraph [0025], “For example, an eligible cloud computing resource unit option can provide a more optimal computing experience based on the requirements specified at 201. […] For example, CPU performance measurements can be normalized so that different CPU types can be compared. As one example, in the event the CPU of a cloud instance is over-utilized, a determination can be made that a more powerful CPU is needed to meet operating requirements (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0028], “The ideal requirements can be specified as a threshold range, such as a minimum and a maximum value pair. For example, a CPU operating requirement can be specified as an ideal operating utilization threshold range [identifying whether the available computing components meets or exceeds the minimum amount of computing components] (emphasis added).”:
in a first instance of the identifying where the available computing components does not meet or exceed the minimum amount of computing components (Paragraph [0025], “For example, an eligible cloud computing resource unit option can provide a more optimal computing experience based on the requirements specified at 201. […] For example, CPU performance measurements can be normalized so that different CPU types can be compared. As one example, in the event the CPU of a cloud instance is over-utilized, a determination can be made that a more powerful CPU is needed to meet operating requirements [in a first instance of the identifying where the available computing components does not meet or exceed the minimum amount of computing components] (emphasis added).”:
but the combination of Ganesan, Vishnoi and Rout does not explicitly disclose:
determining […] is incompatible with the deployment.
However, Kelkar discloses:
determining […] is incompatible with the deployment (Paragraph [0078], “However, some of these deployments may be incompatible, unsupported, or disallowed. For example if topologies 1 and 4 are not acceptable, then the deployment paths section can be used to list the compatible/allowed/supported deployments [determining […] is incompatible with the deployment] (emphasis added).”.
Kelkar is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a system for model based provisioning of applications and servers. Thus, Kelkar 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 Kelkar into the combined teachings of Ganesan, Vishnoi and Rout to include “determining […] is incompatible with the deployment.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to increase in use of service or application by determine a deployment is incompatible (Kelkar, paragraph [0004]).
Claim 16 is a non-transitory machine-readable medium claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 4). Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganesan in view of Vishnoi and Rout as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of US 20190354438 (hereinafter “Mohanta”).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Ganesan discloses “the solution”, and Ganesan further discloses:
[…] the at least one alternative solution of the plurality of alternative solutions (Paragraph [0036], “Utilizing the process of FIG. 5, a current cloud instance configuration is evaluated to determine whether there are additional cloud instance configurations using different cloud computing resource units that are both available and compatible for the current deployment scenario [[…] the at least one alternative solution of the plurality of alternative solutions] (emphasis added).”;
[…] the solution and the at least one alternative solution (Paragraph [0036], “Utilizing the process of FIG. 5, a current cloud instance configuration is evaluated to determine whether there are additional cloud instance configurations using different cloud computing resource units that are both available and compatible for the current deployment scenario [[…] the solution and the at least one alternative solution] (emphasis added).”;
[…] for the at least alternative solution […] (Paragraph [0036], “Utilizing the process of FIG. 5, a current cloud instance configuration is evaluated to determine whether there are additional cloud instance configurations using different cloud computing resource units that are both available and compatible for the current deployment scenario [[…] for the at least alternative solution […]] (emphasis added).”;
selecting an alternative solution of the at least one alternative solution based at least in part on […] (Paragraph [0036], “Utilizing the process of FIG. 5, a current cloud instance configuration is evaluated to determine whether there are additional cloud instance configurations using different cloud computing resource units that are both available and compatible for the current deployment scenario [selecting an alternative solution of the at least one alternative solution based at least in part on […]] (emphasis added).”; wand
providing the selected alternative solution to the user (Paragraph [0026], “At 207, migration to new cloud instances is performed. For example, an administrator is provided with a more optimal cloud instance configuration. [providing the selected alternative solution to the user] (emphasis added).”;
But the combination of Ganesan and Vishnoi does not explicitly disclose:
building a first graph of […]
obtaining a second graph of […]
performing the isometric subgraph analysis, using the first graph and the second graph, to obtain at least one quantification of at least one similarity between […]
obtaining a rank order […] based on the at least one quantification of the at least one similarity;
[…] rank ordering […]
However, Rout discloses:
building a first graph of […] (Paragraph [0144], “The process that is depicted in FIG. 20 begins at step/operation 2001 when the predictive data analysis computing entity 106 generates a first graph-based database representation of the first database that describes one or more first referential key relationships across one or more first table columns of the first database as well as a second graph-based database representation of the second database that describes one or more second referential key relationships across one or more second table columns of the first database [building a first graph of […]] (emphasis added).”;
obtaining a second graph of […] (Paragraph [0154], “Returning to FIG. 20, at step/operation 2002, the predictive data analysis computing entity 106 determines the predicted cross-database structural similarity score based at least in part on the first graph-based database representation and the second graph-based database representation [obtaining a second graph of […]] (emphasis added).”;
performing the isometric subgraph analysis, using the first graph and the second graph, to obtain at least one quantification of at least one similarity between […] (Paragraph [0154], “Returning to FIG. 20, at step/operation 2002, the predictive data analysis computing entity 106 determines the predicted cross-database structural similarity score based at least in part on the first graph-based database representation and the second graph-based database representation. In some embodiments, a score of isomorphism is computed to calculate the similarity between the graphs [performing the isometric subgraph analysis, using the first graph and the second graph, to obtain at least one quantification of at least one similarity between […]] (emphasis added).”;
Rout is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method for performing predictive data analysis with respect to structured data objects. Thus, Rout 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 Rout into the combined teachings of Ganesan and Vishnoi to include “building a first graph of […] obtaining a second graph of […] performing the isometric subgraph analysis, using the first graph and the second graph, to obtain at least one quantification of at least one similarity between […];” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enable the system to detect similarities across graph-based databases (Rout, paragraph [0122]).
However, Mohanta discloses:
obtaining a rank order […] based on the at least one quantification of the at least one similarity (Paragraph [0017], “The present subject matter relates to reconstruction of data of VMs. With the implementations of the present subject matter, VMs may be rank ordered based on their attributes for reconstruction of their data (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0051], “The identification of the most similar reference VMs for a VM may be performed by determining a similarity score for the VM with each reference VM of the set 302. In an example, the similarity score for the VM with a reference VM may be a Euclidean distance between numeral values of the attributes of the VM and the attributes of the reference VM [obtaining a rank order […] based on the at least one quantification of the at least one similarity] (emphasis added).”;
[…] rank ordering […] (Paragraph [0017], “The present subject matter relates to reconstruction of data of VMs. With the implementations of the present subject matter, VMs may be rank ordered based on their attributes for reconstruction of their data [obtaining a rank order [[…] rank ordering […]] (emphasis added).”;
Mohanta is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a system to determine a reconstruction value for a virtual machine (VM). Thus, Mohanta 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 Mohanta into the combined teachings of Ganesan, Vishnoi and Rout to include “obtaining a rank order […] based on the at least one quantification of the at least one similarity; […] rank ordering […]” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to increasing amount of processing resources by providing a rank order for different solutions (Mohanta, paragraph [0009]).
Claim 17 is a non-transitory machine-readable medium claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 5). Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 5.
Claims 6-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganesan in view of Vishnoi and Rout as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mohanta and US 20230336340 (hereinafter “Polleri”).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 5 is incorporated; and Ganesan further discloses:
[…] a corresponding data processing system of the solution, […] the corresponding data processing system required by the solution, […] different data processing systems (Paragraph [0001], “The cloud instances function similar to self-hosted servers but allow for increased flexibility. For example, cloud instances covering a wide range of hardware and software configurations can be made available on demand. Different server configurations can include different operating system, memory, processor, storage, and/or network configurations, among other configurable parameters [[…] a corresponding data processing system of the solution, […] the corresponding data processing system required by the solution, […] different data processing systems] (emphasis added).”.
But the combination of Ganesan, Vishnoi, Rout and Mohanta does not explicitly disclose:
a plurality of nodes interconnected by edges, each node of the plurality of nodes being associated with […], each node comprising characteristics of […], and the edges relating to required interactions between […].
However, Polleri discloses:
a plurality of nodes interconnected by edges, each node of the plurality of nodes being associated with […], each node comprising characteristics of […], and the edges relating to required interactions between […] (Paragraph [0345], “The graph relates the data items in the store to a collection of nodes and edges, the edges representing the relationships between the nodes. The relationships allow data in the store to be linked together directly and, in many cases, retrieved with one operation [a plurality of nodes interconnected by edges, each node of the plurality of nodes being associated with […], each node comprising characteristics of […], and the edges relating to required interactions between […]] (emphasis added).”.
Polleri is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a system for an adaptive pipelining composition service that can identify and incorporate one or more new models into the machine learning application. Thus, Polleri 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 Polleri into the combined teachings of Ganesan, Vishnoi, Rout and Mohanta to include “a plurality of nodes interconnected by edges, each node of the plurality of nodes being associated with […], each node comprising characteristics of […], and the edges relating to required interactions between […]” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to allow user to visually monitor and analyze different solutions (Polleri, paragraph [0118]).
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 5 is incorporated; and Ganesan further discloses:
[…] a corresponding data processing system of the at least one alternative solution, […] the corresponding data processing system required by the at least one alternative solution, […] different data processing systems (Paragraph [0001], “The cloud instances function similar to self-hosted servers but allow for increased flexibility. For example, cloud instances covering a wide range of hardware and software configurations can be made available on demand. Different server configurations can include different operating system, memory, processor, storage, and/or network configurations, among other configurable parameters [[…] a corresponding data processing system of the solution, […] the corresponding data processing system required by the solution, […] different data processing systems] (emphasis added).”.
But the combination of Ganesan, Vishnoi, Rout and Mohanta does not explicitly disclose:
a plurality of nodes interconnected by edges, each node of the plurality of nodes being associated with […], each node comprising characteristics of […], and the edges relating to required interactions between […].
However, Polleri discloses:
a plurality of nodes interconnected by edges, each node of the plurality of nodes being associated with […], each node comprising characteristics of […], and the edges relating to required interactions between […] (Paragraph [0345], “The graph relates the data items in the store to a collection of nodes and edges, the edges representing the relationships between the nodes. The relationships allow data in the store to be linked together directly and, in many cases, retrieved with one operation [a plurality of nodes interconnected by edges, each node of the plurality of nodes being associated with […], each node comprising characteristics of […], and the edges relating to required interactions between […]] (emphasis added).”.
Polleri is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a system for an adaptive pipelining composition service that can identify and incorporate one or more new models into the machine learning application. Thus, Polleri 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 Polleri into the combined teachings of Ganesan, Vishnoi, Rout and Mohanta to include “a plurality of nodes interconnected by edges, each node of the plurality of nodes being associated with […], each node comprising characteristics of […], and the edges relating to required interactions between […]” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to allow user to visually monitor and analyze different solutions (Polleri, paragraph [0118]).
As per Claim 8, the rejection of Claim 7 is incorporated; and Ganesan discloses “the solution and the at least one alternative solution” but the combination of Ganesan, Vishnoi, and Mohanta does not explicitly disclose:
computing a similarity score for the second graph with respect to the first graph using an isometric subgraph analysis algorithm, the similarity score quantifying similarity between a structure of the second graph and a structure of the first graph; and
obtaining, using the similarity score for each node, the at least one quantification of the at least one similarity between […].
However, Rout discloses:
computing a similarity score for the second graph with respect to the first graph using an isometric subgraph analysis algorithm, the similarity score quantifying similarity between a structure of the second graph and a structure of the first graph (Paragraph [0154], “Returning to FIG. 20, at step/operation 2002, the predictive data analysis computing entity 106 determines the predicted cross-database structural similarity score based at least in part on the first graph-based database representation and the second graph-based database representation. In some embodiments, a score of isomorphism is computed to calculate the similarity between the graphs [computing a similarity score for the second graph with respect to the first graph using an isometric subgraph analysis algorithm, the similarity score quantifying similarity between a structure of the second graph and a structure of the first graph] (emphasis added).”; and
obtaining, using the similarity score […], the at least one quantification of the at least one similarity between […] (Paragraph [0154], “Returning to FIG. 20, at step/operation 2002, the predictive data analysis computing entity 106 determines the predicted cross-database structural similarity score based at least in part on the first graph-based database representation and the second graph-based database representation. In some embodiments, a score of isomorphism is computed to calculate the similarity between the graphs [obtaining, using the similarity score […], the at least one quantification of the at least one similarity between […]] (emphasis added).”.
Rout is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method for performing predictive data analysis with respect to structured data objects. Thus, Rout 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 Rout into the combined teachings of Ganesan, Vishnoi, and Mohanta to include “computing a similarity score for the second graph with respect to the first graph using an isometric subgraph analysis algorithm, the similarity score quantifying similarity between a structure of the second graph and a structure of the first graph; and obtaining, using the similarity score […], the at least one quantification of the at least one similarity between […].” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enable the system to detect similarities across graph-based databases (Rout, paragraph [0122]).
However, Polleri discloses:
[…] for each node […] (Paragraph [0345], “The graph relates the data items in the store to a collection of nodes and edges, the edges representing the relationships between the nodes. The relationships allow data in the store to be linked together directly and, in many cases, retrieved with one operation [[…] for each node […]] (emphasis added).”.
Polleri is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a system for an adaptive pipelining composition service that can identify and incorporate one or more new models into the machine learning application. Thus, Polleri 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 Polleri into the combined teachings of Ganesan, Vishnoi, Rout and Mohanta to include “[…] for each node […]” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to allow user to visually monitor and analyze different solutions (Polleri, paragraph [0118]).
As per Claim 11, the rejection of Claim 10 is incorporated; and Ganesan discloses “the additional alternative solutions” and “additional alternative solutions” and Ganesan further discloses:
[…] to the user for selection of at least one of the additional alternative solutions (Paragraph [0011], “The availability of different cloud instance options allows an administrator to select a cloud instance that closely matches deployment requirements [[…] to the user for selection of at least one of the additional alternative solutions] (emphasis added).”;
But the combination of Ganesan, Vishnoi, Rout and Polleri does not explicitly discloses:
rank ordering […] based on the at least one quantification of the at least one similarity to obtain rank ordered […]; and
providing the rank ordered […]
However, Mohanta discloses:
rank ordering […] based on the at least one quantification of the at least one similarity to obtain rank ordered […] (Paragraph [0017], “The present subject matter relates to reconstruction of data of VMs. With the implementations of the present subject matter, VMs may be rank ordered based on their attributes for reconstruction of their data (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0051], “The identification of the most similar reference VMs for a VM may be performed by determining a similarity score for the VM with each reference VM of the set 302. In an example, the similarity score for the VM with a reference VM may be a Euclidean distance between numeral values of the attributes of the VM and the attributes of the reference VM [rank ordering […] based on the at least one quantification of the at least one similarity to obtain rank ordered […]] (emphasis added).”; and
providing the rank ordered […] (Paragraph [0017], “The present subject matter relates to reconstruction of data of VMs. With the implementations of the present subject matter, VMs may be rank ordered based on their attributes for reconstruction of their data [providing the rank ordered […]] (emphasis added).”;
Mohanta is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a system to determine a reconstruction value for a virtual machine (VM). Thus, Mohanta 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 Mohanta into the combined teachings of Ganesan, Vishnoi, Rout and Polleri to include “rank ordering […] based on the at least one quantification of the at least one similarity to obtain rank ordered […]; and providing the rank ordered […]” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to increasing amount of processing resources by providing a rank order for different solutions (Mohanta, paragraph [0009]).
Claims 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganesan in view of Vishnoi and Rout as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Polleri.
As per Claim 9, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Ganesan discloses “the at least one alternative solution” and Ganesan furth discloses:
[…] whether the user agrees with the least one alternative solution to be performed by the deployment (Paragraph [0042], “At 601, approval for migration is received. For example, an administrator approves the migration from a current cloud instance to a new cloud instance using a different cloud computing resource unit (or cloud instance configuration). [[…] whether the user agrees with the least one alternative solution to be performed by the deployment] (emphasis added).”.
but the combination of Ganesan and Rout does not explicitly disclose:
providing a notification of […] to the user device; and
obtaining a response from the user device, the response indicating […].
However, Polleri discloses:
providing a notification of […] to the user device (Paragraph [0042], “At operation 2144, once the services and resources are provisioned, a notification of the provided service may be sent to customers on client devices 2104, 2106 and/or 2108 by order provisioning module 2124 of cloud infrastructure system 2102 [providing a notification of […] to the user device] (emphasis added).”; and
Polleri is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a system for an adaptive pipelining composition service that can identify and incorporate one or more new models into the machine learning application. Thus, Polleri 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 Polleri into the combined teachings of Ganesan and Rout to include “providing a notification of […] to the user device” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to allow user to visually monitor and analyze different solutions (Polleri, paragraph [0118]).
However, Vishnoi discloses:
obtaining a response from the user device, the response indicating […] (Paragraph [0037], “At a conceptual level, digital assistant 106 performs various processing in response to an utterance received from a user. [obtaining a response from the user device, the response indicating […]] (emphasis added).”.
Vishnoi is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method that provides a fast, efficient, and scalable multi-tenant serve pool for chatbot systems. Thus, Vishnoi 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 Vishnoi into the combined teachings of Ganesan, Rout and Polleri to include “obtaining a response from the user device, the response indicating […]”. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enable the system can response to user utterance by providing updated service after updated deployment (Vishnoi, paragraph [0036]).
As per Claim 10, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Ganesan further discloses:
providing additional alternative solutions to the user to select at least one of the additional alternative solutions (Paragraph [0011], “The availability of different cloud instance options allows an administrator to select a cloud instance that closely matches deployment requirements [providing additional alternative solutions to the user to select at least one of the additional alternative solutions] (emphasis added).”; or
providing an option to add additional hardware components to the deployment to make the deployment compatible with the solution or another solution not presented to the user previously (Paragraph [0018], “In some embodiments, service 111 utilizes an up to date list of eligible cloud computing resource unit options. For example, a query for eligible cloud computing resource unit options is performed to determine what cloud instance configuration options are available. Different available configurations can provide different hardware configurations such as different CPU, GPU, memory, disk, and/or network configurations, among others, as well as different software configurations. The available options are used to determine whether a compatible option is better suited for the current deployment scenario [providing an option to add additional hardware components to the deployment to make the deployment compatible with the solution or another solution not presented to the user previously] (emphasis added).”.
But the combination of Ganesan, Vishnoi and Rout does not explicitly disclose:
in a second instance of the obtaining where the user input indicates disagreement:
However, Polleri discloses:
in a second instance of the obtaining where the user input indicates disagreement (Paragraph [0294], “If the re-invoked trained model predicts an approval, then the reason provided by the developer for requesting the open source library may be identified in step 1208 as one of the causal factors for the predicted denial [in a second instance of the obtaining where the user input indicates disagreement] (emphasis added).”:
Polleri is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a system for an adaptive pipelining composition service that can identify and incorporate one or more new models into the machine learning application. Thus, Polleri 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 Polleri into the combined teachings of Ganesan, Vishnoi and Rout to include “in a second instance of the obtaining where the user input indicates disagreement” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to allow user to visually monitor and analyze different solutions (Polleri, paragraph [0118]).
As per Claim 12, the rejection of Claim 10 is incorporated; and Ganesan further discloses:
in an instance of the providing where the option to add the additional hardware components is agreed to by the user (Paragraph [0042], “At 601, approval for migration is received. For example, an administrator approves the migration from a current cloud instance to a new cloud instance using a different cloud computing resource unit (or cloud instance configuration) [in an instance of the providing where the option to add the additional hardware components is agreed to by the user] (emphasis added).”:
obtaining user input indicating agreement with temporary use of the at least one of the additional alternative solutions pending integration of the additional hardware components into the deployment (Paragraph [0042], “At 601, approval for migration is received. For example, an administrator approves the migration from a current cloud instance to a new cloud instance using a different cloud computing resource unit (or cloud instance configuration) (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0044], “At 605, failover and/or rollback options are prepared. […] In various embodiments, a rollback option allows the deployment to be reverted to the current configuration used prior to migration (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0045], “For example, in the event the current configuration is CPU bound and the selected migration option increases CPU compute performance, a failover option can be selected that also increases CPU compute performance but by an even greater amount. In the event the selected option is found to fail (or enter a failure or pre-failure state) because of CPU over-utilization, the failover option with increased CPU compute performance can be utilized [obtaining user input indicating agreement with temporary use of the at least one of the additional alternative solutions pending integration of the additional hardware components into the deployment] (emphasis added).”;
updating operation of the deployment based on the at least one of the additional alternative solutions to obtain a temporary updated deployment (Paragraph [0044], “At 605, failover and/or rollback options are prepared. […] In various embodiments, a rollback option allows the deployment to be reverted to the current configuration used prior to migration (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0045], “For example, in the event the current configuration is CPU bound and the selected migration option increases CPU compute performance, a failover option can be selected that also increases CPU compute performance but by an even greater amount. In the event the selected option is found to fail (or enter a failure or pre-failure state) because of CPU over-utilization, the failover option with increased CPU compute performance can be utilized [updating operation of the deployment based on the at least one of the additional alternative solutions to obtain a temporary updated deployment] (emphasis added).”; and
[…] until the additional hardware components are integrated into the deployment (Paragraph [0044], “At 605, failover and/or rollback options are prepared. […] In various embodiments, a rollback option allows the deployment to be reverted to the current configuration used prior to migration (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0045], “For example, in the event the current configuration is CPU bound and the selected migration option increases CPU compute performance, a failover option can be selected that also increases CPU compute performance but by an even greater amount. In the event the selected option is found to fail (or enter a failure or pre-failure state) because of CPU over-utilization, the failover option with increased CPU compute performance can be utilized [[…] until the additional hardware components are integrated into the deployment] (emphasis added).”;
But the combination of Ganesan, Rout and Polleri does not explicitly disclose:
providing computer-implemented services using the temporary updated deployment […].
However, Vishnoi discloses:
providing computer-implemented services using the temporary updated deployment […] (Paragraph [0029], “Additionally, the query serving system updates the pool of deployments on a periodic basis to ensure that sufficient capacity is available so that requests for new skillbots can be served immediately (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0131], “In certain examples, server 1012 may also provide other services or software applications that may include non-virtual and virtual environments [providing computer-implemented services using the temporary updated deployment […]] (emphasis added).”;
Vishnoi is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method that provides a fast, efficient, and scalable multi-tenant serve pool for chatbot systems. Thus, Vishnoi 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 Vishnoi into the combined teachings of Ganesan, Rout and Polleri to include “providing computer-implemented services using the temporary updated deployment […]”. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enable the system can response to user utterance by providing updated service after updated deployment (Vishnoi, paragraph [0036]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US 2022/0206877 (hereinafter “Sohail”) discloses an apparatus comprises a processing device configured to generate a model of a plurality of devices characterizing relationships between the devices.
US 2020/0348984 (hereinafter “Giannetti”) discloses a method for managing multiple clusters by a control cluster within a container environment.
US 2011/0082670 (hereinafter “McAuley”) discloses various graph similarity measurement that have different utility for different applications.
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