Detailed Action
This action is in response to application filed on 11/03/2023.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 11/03/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 11/03/2023 are accepted.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method executed by data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
obtaining, for each service of a plurality of services of a public cloud environment, a criticality classification, each criticality classification comprising one of:
a critical classification;
a semi-critical classification; or
a non-critical classification;
obtaining a maintenance schedule for the public cloud environment, the maintenance schedule comprising a plurality of maintenance windows, each maintenance window of the plurality of maintenance windows associated with a respective criticality classification;
receiving a maintenance request requesting maintenance of one of the plurality of services;
determining that each maintenance window associated with the respective criticality classification of the one of the plurality of services is currently closed;
and in response to determining that each maintenance window associated with the respective criticality classification of the one of the plurality of services is currently closed, denying the maintenance request.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, mental processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper (see, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942, hereinafter “PEG”). For instance, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper based on reading/receiving certain data, mentally performing determining that each maintenance window associated with the respective criticality classification of the one of the plurality of services is currently closed; and in response to determining that each maintenance window associated with the respective criticality classification of the one of the plurality of services is currently closed, denying the maintenance request.
.
Per prong 2, Step 2A, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above, are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. For instance,
“obtaining, for each service of a plurality of services of a public cloud environment, a criticality classification, each criticality classification comprising one of: a critical classification; a semi-critical classification; or a non-critical classification; obtaining a maintenance schedule for the public cloud environment, the maintenance schedule comprising a plurality of maintenance windows, each maintenance window of the plurality of maintenance windows associated with a respective criticality classification; receiving a maintenance request requesting maintenance of one of the plurality of services” are mere data gathering/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)
“Computer-implemented method executed by data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising” are merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Per Step 2B, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above, are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). . For instance,
“obtaining, for each service of a plurality of services of a public cloud environment, a criticality classification, each criticality classification comprising one of: a critical classification; a semi-critical classification; or a non-critical classification; obtaining a maintenance schedule for the public cloud environment, the maintenance schedule comprising a plurality of maintenance windows, each maintenance window of the plurality of maintenance windows associated with a respective criticality classification; receiving a maintenance request requesting maintenance of one of the plurality of services” are mere data gathering/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)
“Computer-implemented method executed by data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising” are merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 11 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 1 and is of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-10, and 12-20 when considered individually or in combination per steps as noted above are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claims 1, and 11, and the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. In particular:
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites receiving a second maintenance request requesting maintenance of the one of the plurality of services; determining that one maintenance window associated with the respective criticality classification of the one of the plurality of services is currently open; and based on determining that the one maintenance window associated with the respective criticality classification of the one of the plurality of services is currently open, allowing the maintenance request.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein: the operations further comprise determining that maintenance defined by the maintenance request will complete prior to the one maintenance window associated with the respective criticality classification of the one of the plurality of services closes; and allowing the maintenance request is further based on determining that the maintenance defined by the maintenance request will complete prior to the one maintenance window associated with the respective criticality classification of the one of the plurality of services closes.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein: the public cloud environment comprises a first cluster and a second cluster; and the plurality of services execute within the first cluster or the second cluster.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 further incorporated, further recites wherein: the first cluster is associated with a first geographic region; the second cluster is associated with a second geographic region; and the first geographic region and the second geographic region are different.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 4 further incorporated, further recites wherein, when a first maintenance window of the plurality of maintenance windows is open for the plurality of services executing on the first cluster, each maintenance window of the plurality of maintenance windows is closed for services executing on the second cluster.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 further incorporated, further recites wherein, when a second maintenance window of the plurality of maintenance windows is open for the plurality of services executing on the second cluster, each maintenance window of the plurality of maintenance windows is closed for services executing on the first cluster.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 4 further incorporated, further recites wherein the plurality of maintenance windows alternates opening and closing between the first cluster and the second cluster.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein any maintenance window associated with the non-critical classification is always open.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the maintenance schedule comprises a recurring maintenance schedule with a predefined period.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claims 12-20:
Claims 12-20 are system claims corresponding to method claim 2-10 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claim 12-20 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 2-10.
Accordingly, claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the above noted rejections are overcome via amendments and/or arguments. Reasons for allowance will be held in abeyance until all matters in the prosecution are closed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
CONFLICT RESOLUTION FOR DEVICE-DRIVEN MANAGEMENT
DOCUMENT ID
US 20220236972 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2022-07-28
… [0126] Then at step 906, the management agent 145 can determine whether a device-driven management workflow 139 stored in the workflow queue 150 can be executed based on the time window(s) 142 identified at step 903. For example, the management agent 145 could evaluate a first device-driven management workflow 139 in the workflow queue 150 to determine the type of device-driven management workflow 139 and compare it to the class(es) of the time window(s) 142 identified at step 909. For instance, if the current time falls within a time window 142 that is classified as a maintenance window, then the management agent 145 could determine that any device-driven management workflow 139 can be executed. As another example, if the management agent 145 determines that the current time falls within a time window 142 classified as “business hours,” the management agent 145 might determine that no device-driven management workflow 139 should be implemented to avoid impacting a user's ability to work during business hours. If multiple time windows 142 overlap, then the time windows 142 could be compared and a highest priority or highest ranking time window 142 could be used to determine whether to execute the device-driven management workflow 139. For example, a default time window 142 could specify that any device-driven management workflows 139 could be executed, but an overlapping, higher-ranked time window 142 could specify that the current date and time fall within business hours and execution of a device-driven management workflow 139 would be prohibited. Accordingly, the higher-ranking time window 142 specifying business hours would be used by the management agent 142 to determine whether to implement the device-driven management workflow 139. Similarly, a default time window 142 could specify that device-driven management workflows 139 are not to be executed, while an overlapping, higher-ranked time window 142 could specify that the current date and time fall within a maintenance window and execution of a device-driven management workflow 139 is permitted. As another example, a time window 142 for an emergency maintenance window could overlap with a time window 142 specifying business hours, in which case the time window 142 for emergency maintenance might supersede the time window 142 for the business hours. If a determination is made that the device-driven management workflow 139 can be executed in the current time window 142, then the process can proceed to step 909. However, if the determination is made that the device-driven management workflow 139 cannot currently be executed, then the process can return to step 903 for continued evaluation until an appropriate time window for execution of the device-driven management workflow 139 is identified. The process at step 906 could be performed for each device-driven management workflow 139 in the workflow queue 150 or the only the first device-driven management workflow 139 in the workflow queue…
MAINTENANCE CONFLICT TOOL
DOCUMENT ID
US 20170344402 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2017-11-30
Abstract
A job hold tool includes a memory, a conflict engine, a hold engine, and a start engine. The memory stores a maintenance schedule indicating a period of time during which maintenance is scheduled to occur and a job schedule indicating a plurality of scheduled start times for a plurality of jobs. The conflict engine identifies, based on the job schedule and the maintenance schedule, each job of the plurality of jobs whose scheduled start time is within the period of time. The hold engine holds each job identified by the conflict engine such that each held job will not start at its scheduled start time. The start engine starts each held job in response to a received notification that the maintenance is complete.
Utilizing Maintenance Event Windows To Determine Placement Of Instances
DOCUMENT ID
US 11354150 B1
DATE PUBLISHED
2022-06-07
Abstract
This disclosure describes techniques for flexible maintenance windows for performing maintenance for instances. Using techniques described herein, a user of a service provider network may specify configuration data that relates to maintenance events of instances. A “maintenance event” is any event that relates to deploying instances and/or at least temporarily losing use of an instance. For example, a maintenance event may cause an instance to be deployed, re-booted, re-started, or replaced. According to some configurations, customers may specify one or more maintenance event windows for when maintenance is to be performed, as well as customize notifications that are provided to the customer about scheduled maintenance events. For instance, customers may create a maintenance window that specifies to perform maintenance on Tuesdays, between 2 AM-3 AM, and that notifications are to include information specified by the customer (e.g., through one or more tags).
See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, can be reached on 571-270-3180. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MUSTAFA A AMIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194