DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to communication filed 12/10/2025.
The instant application having application No. 18/497,494 filed on October 30, 2023, presents claims 1-20 for examination. The instant application has no priority information.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/1/2025was filed before the mailing date of the Final Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 12, 7, 11, 17, and 20 are amended, claim 3 is canceled. Accordingly, claims 1-2, and 4-20 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
(A). Regarding claim objections: Applicant’s amendment to claims partially corrected the objections to claims 2 and 10. The objection to “for each of the software component version” for claims 2, 10, and 17 are maintained as set forth in the office action below.
(B). Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection: The amended claims are still abstract idea without significantly more, the 101 rejections are maintained as set forth in the office action below.
(C). Regarding art rejection: In regards to pending claims Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive; further, Applicant's amendments necessitated new grounds of rejections presented in the following art rejection.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 10, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 8, “for each of the software component version”, suggestion: -for each of the software component versions-. Claims 10 and 17 have the same issue.
Claims 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16, line 1, “A operation management system”, suggestion: -An operation management system-. Claims 17-20 are objected to for the same reason because they depend from claim 16. In addition, the “data processing system” in claims 17-20 should be replaced with the “operation management system”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a method claim under Step 1.
Under Prong 1, Step 2A:
However, the limitations of claim 1,
“ obtaining, using the update, a device update graph;
performing, using the device update graph, a reverse topological analysis to identify paths through the device update graph;
identifying, for each of the paths and using information stored separately in a cost information repository, a cost for traversing the respective path of the paths, the information comprising historical update data applied by other data processing systems separate from the data processing system and the information not being included as part of the device update graph;
identifying, using the costs for the paths, a duration of time to complete the application of the update to the data processing system;
obtaining, using the duration of time, an update plan for the data processing system;
causing, using the update plan, the data processing system to update configurations of one or more hardware or software components of the data processing system based on the update plan to obtain an updated data processing system;”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. E.g. human can manually obtain (i.e. manually draw) a device update graph using the update data; can manually perform a reverse topological analysis to identify paths through the device update graph; can manually identify a cost for traversing the respective path of the paths as defined in the claim; can manually identify a duration of time to complete the application of the update to the data processing system; can manually obtain (i.e. select) an update plan for the data processing system. For “causing, using the update plan, the data processing system to update configurations of one or more hardware or software components of the data processing system based on the update plan to obtain an updated data processing system”, it is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance
of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “the data processing system,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the data processing system” language, “to update configurations” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually updates a configuration file based on the update plan. The data processing system is merely used as a tool to implement the identified abstract idea. Thus these claim limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A
Under Prong 2, Step 2A:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements
“obtaining a request for application of an update to the data processing system;”
“causing the updated data processing system[[,]] to provide computer implemented services for a user associated with the request for application of the update.”
“a data processing system”,
Wherein “a data processing device” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. “obtaining a request …” is insignificant extra-solution activity such as gathering data, according to MPEP 2106.05(g); thus, not indicative of an integration into a practical application. “causing the updated data processing system to provide computer implemented services …” is merely using computer (data processing system) as a tool to implement the judicial exception, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “causing the updated data processing system to provide computer implemented services ….” and “a data processing system”, are mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, thus, are not an inventive concept. “obtaining a request for application of an update to the data processing system;” is insignificant extra-solution data gathering such as receiving data activity which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Accordingly, even viewed as a whole, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claim 9, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium (product) under Step 1.
This claim recites A non-transitory machine-readable medium to implement the method that is disclosed in claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 1.
Claim 9 recites additional elements that are not recited in claim 1, i.e. “A non-transitory machine-readable medium” and “a processor”; but the non-transitory machine-readable medium and the processor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer component) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
With respect to claim 16, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to an operation management system under Step 1.
This claim recites an operation management system to implement the method that is disclosed in claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 1.
Claim 16 recites additional elements that are not recited in claim 1, i.e. “a processor”, “a memory” and “devices”; but the processor, the memory, and the devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer component) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
With respect to claims 2, 10, and 17, “wherein obtaining the device update graph comprises:
identifying software component versions of the application between a current software component version of the application and a different software component version of the application specified by the update, each of the software component versions of the application being different versions of the application;
obtaining dependency data for the software component version, the dependency data indicating requirements for each of the software component version to be installed in the data processing system nominally, and the dependency data being usable to identify an order for installation of the software component versions that will result in nominal operation of applications hosted by the data processing system after the installation; and
generating the device update graph using the software component versions and the dependency data.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. E.g. the user can manually identify software component versions as defined in the claim element; can manually obtain dependency data as defined in the claim element; can manually generate the device update graph as defined in the claim element.
With respect to claims 3, 11, and 18, “wherein the device update graph comprises:
nodes representing the software component versions; and
edges positioned between at least a portion of the nodes, the edges representing:
updates between the software component versions that are allowed to be performed;
dependencies of the software component versions; and
corresponding costs for application of the updates between the software component versions.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claims 4, 12, and 19, “wherein the nodes and the edges are arranged to form a directed acyclic graph, the directed acyclic graph being a direct graph without a closed loop of paths to traverse.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claims 5, 13, and 20, “wherein the paths represent independent update processes to be performed as part of updating the data processing system to the updated data processing system, any of the independent update processes being performed sequentially and/or in parallel to each other, and the paths comprising sub-portions of the edges of the device update graph.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claims 6, 14, “wherein identifying the cost for traversing the respective paths comprises:
identifying, for one path of the paths, edges of the device update graph along the one path, each of the edges indicating a corresponding cost based on historical data for a similar configuration of the data processing system; and
obtaining a summation of the cost for each of the edges along the one path, the summation of the cost indicating a period of time to update the application to each of the software component versions associated with the one path.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. E.g. the user can manually identify edges of the device update graph as defined in the claim element; can manually obtain/calculate a summation of the cost for each of the edges along the one path as defined in the claim element.
With respect to claims 7, 15, “wherein the update plan is also obtained using update preferences, the update preferences comprising at least one of:
priority of data processing systems of a distributed system, the data processing systems competing with the data processing system for limited resources of the distributed system for applying updates to the distributed system, and the priority of each of the data processing systems indicating a relative preference for updating over other parts of the distributed system;
priority of updates to be applied to the part of the distributed system, the priority of each of the updates indicating a relative preference for applying the updates over other updates of the updates;
rate-limits for the updates, the rate-limits specifying maximum numbers of the updates that are to be performed per unit of time; and
buffers for applying the updates, the buffers specifying additional time beyond a time estimate that is estimated to take for application of the updates, and the time estimates for the application of the updates and the buffers being used to reduce a likelihood of update processes exceeding predetermined time windows for applying the updates.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claim 8, “wherein the update plan is adapted to be completed during an update cycle window, and the update cycle window being an amount of time available to perform any number and type of updates to the data processing system.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
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 of this title, 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 1-7, 9-15, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20200334025 A1, hereinafter “Wang”) in view of Gokhman et al. (US 20210117548 A1, hereinafter “Gokhman”)
With respect to claim 1 (Currently Amended), Wang discloses A method for managing operations for a data processing system, the method being performed by an operation management system that manages the data processing system and comprising (e.g. Fig. 1):
obtaining a request for application of an update to the data processing system (e.g. para [0065], “In a specific embodiment, the graph is built in response to receiving from a customer user an indication or other input that they wish to upgrade a software product on their computing machine. …”);
obtaining, using the update, a device update graph (e.g. para [0064], “In a step 410, a directed acyclic graph is built. The graph includes a set of nodes and a set of edges. Each node represents a version of the software product. Each edge represents an upgrade path between a pair of nodes. …”);
performing, using the device update graph, [a reverse topological] analysis to identify paths through the device update graph (e.g. para [0083], “… In a step 510, a set of traversal paths through the graph is identified. …”);
identifying, for each of the paths and using information stored separately in a cost information repository, a cost for traversing the respective path of the paths (e.g. para [0085], “In a step 515, a set of weights of the first type, and a set of weights of the second type are calculated for the traversal paths. …. A second weight of the traversal path is calculated by summing the second type of weighted values assigned to the edges of the traversal path.” Para [0084], “… A second type of weighted value indicates an estimated amount of time associated with the upgrade from the earlier to later version”. Para [0060-0062] discloses a testing results database which reads on a cost information repository, the testing results database stores weight values (read on cost) that are used in identifying a cost for traversing a path), the information comprising historical update data applied by other data processing systems separate from the data processing system and the information not being included as part of the device update graph (e.g. para [0060], “The testing results database stores results obtained from testing the various different versions of the software product. In an embodiment, the test results include a stability score and upgrade time score associated with upgrading an earlier version of the software product to a later version of the software product. …” wherein the testing suggests a testing system which is separate from the data processing system.);
identifying, using the costs for the paths, a duration of time to complete the application of the update to the data processing system (e.g. para [0085], “… A second weight of the traversal path is calculated by summing the second type of weighted values assigned to the edges of the traversal path.” Para [0084], “… A second type of weighted value indicates an estimated amount of time associated with the upgrade from the earlier to later version”. Wherein the sum of the second type of weighted values reads on a duration of time to complete the update);
obtaining, using the duration of time, an update plan for the data processing system (e.g. para [0089], “In a step 535, a second particular traversal path is selected as being the second upgrade path corresponding to the second upgrade plan that minimizes the estimated upgrade time associated with upgrading to the desired version. …” also see para [0075-0076]);
causing, using the update plan, the data processing system to update configurations of one or more hardware or software components of the data processing system based on the update plan to obtain an updated data processing system (e.g. para [0081], “In a step 440, the upgrade package is transmitted over the network or downloaded to the customer user for installation on the customer's computing device. … the user may run an installer program included in the upgrade package to install the desired version of the software product, including any intermediate versions, on the computing device”. Para [0058], “the customer user can use the management console to select as a blanket or default setting for a collection of multiple computing devices whether upgrade plans should be assembled according to a most stable plan or a quickest plan. …” wherein setting reads on configuration, this paragraph indicates that the upgrade plans cause the processing system to update configurations. Also see para [0069] which suggests the upgrade plans cause the processing system to update configurations); and
ausing the updated data processing system[[,]] to provide computer implemented services for a user associated with the request for application of the update (e.g. para [0082], “… As a result of the upgrade process, source code, binaries, or other data associated with the version of the software product previously installed on the computing device may be overwritten with data associated with the desired version of the software product to upgrade to. Once the upgrade of the customer's computing device is complete, the customer user will be able to enjoy the benefits provided by having the newer desired version of the software product (e.g., increased performance, new features, bug fixes, and so forth) installed on their computing device”).
Wang discloses identifying a set of traversal paths, but does not appear to explicitly disclose performing, (using the device update graph), a reverse topological (analysis to identify paths through the device update graph), However, this is taught in analogous art, Gokhman (e.g. para [0016], “… and traversing the directed acyclic graph in a reverse direction, beginning at the package instance node of the target package instance, until reaching a root node of the directed acyclic graph
representing a user code, whereby each traversal path is a different dependency path of the target package instance.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Wand with the invention of Gokhman because it provides a method for identifying traversal paths in a directed acyclic graph by reverse traversing the graph. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a method for identifying traversal paths in a directed acyclic graph by reverse traversing the graph as suggested by Gokhman (see para [0016]).
With respect to claim 2 (Currently Amended), Wang as modified by Gokhman discloses The method of claim 1, Wang further discloses wherein obtaining the device update graph comprises:
identifying software component versions of the application between a current software component version of the application and a different software component version of the application specified by the update, each of the software component versions of the application being different versions of the application (e.g. para [0056], “… In an embodiment, the upgrade package includes a desired version of the software product that the user desires to upgrade to, a set of intermediate versions of the software product, and a sequence indicating an order in which the intermediate versions of the software product should be installed on the customer's computing device. …” also see para [0057]);
obtaining dependency data for the software component version, the dependency data indicating requirements for each of the software component version to be installed in the data processing system nominally, and the dependency data being usable to identify an order for installation of the software component versions that will result in nominal operation of applications hosted by the data processing system after the installation (e.g. para [0068], “… The order in which the first set of intermediate nodes appear along the first upgrade path indicates the sequence in which the first set of intermediate versions of the software product should be installed on the customer's computing device.” Wherein the order suggests dependency of intermediate versions); and
generating the device update graph using the software component versions and the dependency data (e.g. Fig. 4 steps 420 and 425).
With respect to claim 3, Wang as modified by Gokhman discloses The method of claim 2, Wang further discloses wherein the device update graph comprises:
nodes representing the software component versions (e.g. para [0046], “… each node of the graph stands for or represents a version of the software product …”); and
edges positioned between at least a portion of the nodes (e.g. para [0046], “… and the edge stands for or represents an upgrade from one version to another.”), the edges representing:
updates between the software component versions that are allowed to be performed (e.g. para [0046], “… and the edge stands for or represents an upgrade from one version to another.”);
dependencies of the software component versions (e.g. para [0068], “… The order in which the first set of intermediate nodes appear along the first upgrade path indicates the sequence in which the first set of intermediate versions of the software product should be installed on the customer's computing device.” Wherein the order suggests dependency of intermediate versions); and
corresponding costs for application of the updates between the software component versions (e.g. para [0066], “In a step 415, a set of weighted values of a first type and a set of weighted values of a second type are assigned to the set of edges. …” wherein the weighted values read on costs).
With respect to claim 4, Wang as modified by Gokhman discloses The method of claim 3, Wang further discloses wherein the nodes and the edges are arranged to form a directed acyclic graph, the directed acyclic graph being a direct graph without a closed loop of paths to traverse (e.g. Figs. 2 and 3).
With respect to claim 5 (Currently Amended), Wang as modified by Gokhman discloses The method of claim 3, Wang further discloses wherein the paths represent independent update processes to be performed as part of updating the data processing system to the updated data processing system, any of the independent update processes being performed sequentially and/or in parallel to each other, and the paths comprising sub-portions of the edges of the device update graph (e.g. Figs. 2 and 3. Where in Fig.2, 215A is a path, 215B is another path, the two paths can be performed in parallel, 215C is the third path, the third path can be performed in sequence with 215A. the three paths are each comprising sub-portions of the edges of the device update graph).
With respect to claim 6, Wang as modified by Gokhman discloses The method of claim 3, Wang further discloses wherein identifying the cost for traversing the respective paths comprises:
identifying, for one path of the paths, edges of the device update graph along the one path, each of the edges indicating a corresponding cost based on historical data for a similar configuration of the data processing system (e.g. para [0061], “… these testing scores form weighted values that are then assigned to respective edges in the directed acyclic graph created for the software product in response to an upgrade request. …” also see para [0060] which discloses “The testing results database stores results obtained from testing the various different versions of the software product. In an embodiment, the test results include a stability score and upgrade time score associated with upgrading an earlier version of the software product to a later version of the software product.” Wherein the testing scores read on historical data); and
obtaining a summation of the cost for each of the edges along the one path, the summation of the cost indicating a period of time to update the application to each of the software component versions associated with the one path (e.g. Fig. 5, step 515, and corresponding text in para [0085]).
With respect to claim 7, Wang as modified by Gokhman discloses The method of claim 3, Wang further discloses wherein the update plan is also obtained using update preferences, the update preferences comprising at least one of:
priority of data processing systems of a distributed system, the data processing systems competing with the data processing system for limited resources of the distributed system for applying updates to the distributed system, and the priority of each of the data processing systems indicating a relative preference for updating over other parts of the distributed system;
priority of updates to be applied to the part of the distributed system, the priority of each of the updates indicating a relative preference for applying the updates over other updates of the updates (e.g. Fig. 5, step 525, wherein minimizing risks is the priority);
rate-limits for the updates, the rate-limits specifying maximum numbers of the updates that are to be performed per unit of time; and
buffers for applying the updates, the buffers specifying additional time beyond a time estimate that is estimated to take for application of the updates, and the time estimates for the application of the updates and the buffers being used to reduce a likelihood of update processes exceeding predetermined time windows for applying the updates.
With respect to claim 9 (Currently Amended), it is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium to implement the method disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 9. Note that Wand discloses A non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing operations for a data processing system (e.g. Figs. 18 and 1).
With respect to claim 10 (Currently Amended), it recites same features as claim 2, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 11, it recites same features as claim 3, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 12, it recites same features as claim 4, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 13 (Currently Amended), it recites same features as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 14, it recites same features as claim 6, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 15, it recites same features as claim 7, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 16 (Currently Amended), it is directed to a data processing system to implement the method disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 16. Note that Wand discloses A data processing system, comprising:
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 data collection for managed devices and unmanaged devices, (e.g. Figs. 18 and 1).
With respect to claim 17 (Currently Amended), it recites same features as claim 2, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 18, it recites same features as claim 3, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 19, it recites same features as claim 4, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 20 (Currently Amended), it recites same features as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Gokhman as applied to claim 1, in further view of Curran et al. (US 20160103673 A1, hereinafter “Curran”)
With respect to claim 8, Wang as modified by Gokhman discloses The method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the update plan is adapted to be completed during an update cycle window, and the update cycle window being an amount of time available to perform any number and type of updates to the data processing system. However, this is taught in analogous art, Curran (e.g. para [0016], “… the importance of the various software patches must be taken into account, such that the most critical software patches are applied first in a maintenance window to ensure mitigation of any issues that may occur by not having enough time in the maintenance window to apply the critical software patches. …”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Curran because it provides techniques for software patch management that ensures mitigation of any issues that may occur by not having enough time in the maintenance window to apply the critical software patches. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for software patch management that ensures mitigation of any issues that may occur by not having enough time in the maintenance window to apply the critical software patches as suggested by Curran (see para [0016]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At p1 last paragraph to p3 third paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued with respect to 101 rejections, particularly, at p2 second from last paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “Additionally, the human mind alone (with the aid of only pen and paper) cannot actually physically cause a data processing system to update its own hardware and/or software configurations.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as set forth in the office action above, human can manually update the configuration file which updates the hardware and/or software configurations of the system. The system (computer) is merely used as a tool to implement the identified abstract idea of updating the configurations.
At p3 second paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “… In particular, such causing of the update of the data processing's hardware and/or software configuration clearly does not qualify as any the mental processes of "observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions," recognized by the courts.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as set forth in the office action and explained above, for the “causing …” limitations, based on 101 training Example 37, it is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “the data processing system,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the data processing system” language, “to update configurations” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually updates a configuration file based on the update plan. The data processing system is merely used as a tool to implement the identified abstract idea.
At p3 third paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “By virtue of their dependence, the remaining dependent claims are also patent eligible for at least the same reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that all of the claims recite eligible subject matter and respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as explained above, the independent claims are still abstract idea without significantly more, even viewed as a whole, the claims do not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101. The dependent claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, or that constitute an inventive concept, the 101 abstract idea rejections are maintained.
At p3 last two paragraphs and p4 of the Remarks, Applicant argued with respect to 103 rejections. These arguments are moot upon new grounds of rejections made in the office action above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Hwang et al. US 20210019135 A1 teaches self-learning optimized patch orchestration.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zengpu Wei whose telephone number is 571-270-1302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets, can be reached on 571-272-3338. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/ZENGPU WEI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2197
/BRADLEY A TEETS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2197