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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 03/14/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 11 and 16 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 11 and 16 are corresponding to one of four statutory categories including method, system, and method respectively under step 1. The claims 1, 11 and 16 similarly recite “a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, for one or more first software users, one or more parameters of one or more first conditions of a software component autodeployment setting, wherein the software component autodeployment setting at least partially controls whether to automatically deploy any candidate software components to one or more computing environments of the one or more first software users, wherein the software component autodeployment setting for the one or more first software users is different than another software component autodeployment setting available for the one or more first software users; wherein the other software component autodeployment setting comprises one or more other parameters for the one or more first conditions; wherein at least one of the one or more first conditions is not specific to any candidate software component; storing candidate software component deployment metadata identifying a plurality of software components available for deployment in a particular computing environment of a particular software user of the one or more first software users; wherein the plurality of software components available for deployment comprise a particular software component and one or more other software components; wherein the particular computing environment of the particular software user does not include the particular software component and does not include the one or more other software components; receiving one or more particular logs of user activity in the particular computing environment by the particular software user; analyzing the one or more particular logs of user activity of the particular software user using a machine learning model trained on a plurality of logs of user activity of a plurality of software users to determine: a particular autodeployment utility score comprising a predicted degree of utility of the particular software component, if deployed, for the particular software user, and one or more other autodeployment utility scores comprising one or more other predicted degrees of utility of the one or more other software components, if deployed, for the particular software user; based at least in part on determining that the one or more first conditions of the software component autodeployment setting are satisfied, and based at least in part on the particular autodeployment utility score and the one or more other autodeployment utility scores, automatically performing one or more deployment operations for the particular software component in the particular computing environment of the particular software user without automatically performing one or more deployment operations for the one or more other software components; wherein the one or more first conditions would not be satisfied based on the one or more other parameters”.
The limitation of the claims 1, 11 and 16 of “analyzing the one or more particular logs of user activity of the particular software user using a machine learning model trained on a plurality of logs of user activity of a plurality of software users” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “analyzing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may analyze the one or more particular logs of user activity of the particular software user using a machine learning model trained on a plurality of logs of user activity of a plurality of software users with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind 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 under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 11 and 16 of “to determine: a particular autodeployment utility score comprising a predicted degree of utility of the particular software component, if deployed, for the particular software user,” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine a particular autodeployment utility score comprising a predicted degree of utility of the particular software component, if deployed, for the particular software user, with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind 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 under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 11 and 16 of “to determine: one or more other autodeployment utility scores comprising one or more other predicted degrees of utility of the one or more other software components, if deployed, for the particular software user” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine one or more other autodeployment utility scores comprising one or more other predicted degrees of utility of the one or more other software components, if deployed, for the particular software user with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind 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 under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 11 and 16 recite additional elements such as “receiving, for one or more first software users, one or more parameters of one or more first conditions of a software component autodeployment setting, wherein the software component autodeployment setting at least partially controls whether to automatically deploy any candidate software components to one or more computing environments of the one or more first software users, wherein the software component autodeployment setting for the one or more first software users is different than another software component autodeployment setting available for the one or more first software users; wherein the other software component autodeployment setting comprises one or more other parameters for the one or more first conditions; wherein at least one of the one or more first conditions is not specific to any candidate software component”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). 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. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 11 and 16 recite additional elements such as “storing candidate software component deployment metadata identifying a plurality of software components available for deployment in a particular computing environment of a particular software user of the one or more first software users; wherein the plurality of software components available for deployment comprise a particular software component and one or more other software components; wherein the particular computing environment of the particular software user does not include the particular software component and does not include the one or more other software components”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data storing under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). 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. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 11 and 16 recite additional elements such as “receiving one or more particular logs of user activity in the particular computing environment by the particular software user”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). 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. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 11 and 16 recite additional elements such as “based at least in part on determining that the one or more first conditions of the software component autodeployment setting are satisfied, and based at least in part on the particular autodeployment utility score and the one or more other autodeployment utility scores, automatically performing one or more deployment operations for the particular software component in the particular computing environment of the particular software user without automatically performing one or more deployment operations for the one or more other software components; wherein the one or more first conditions would not be satisfied based on the one or more other parameters”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). 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. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 2, 12 and 17 recite additional elements such as “downloading the particular software component to the particular computing environment; after said downloading is complete”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). 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. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 2, 12 and 17 recite additional elements such as “automatically installing the particular software component in the particular computing environment; wherein said automatically installing generates an executable version of the particular software component that references one or more particular resources of the particular computing environment; wherein, prior to said automatically installing: the particular software component was not installed in the particular computing environment, and the particular software component did not reference the one or more particular resources of the particular computing environment”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). 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. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 3, 13 and 18 recite additional elements such as “downloading the particular software component to the particular computing environment; and after said downloading is complete, notifying the particular software user that said downloading is complete wherein the particular software component did not exist in the particular computing environment prior said downloading; and wherein installation of the particular software component is not automatically triggered after said downloading”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). 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. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claim 4 of “wherein the plurality of logs of user activity of the plurality of software users indicate a pattern that the particular software component is used after a gap of time after one or more other software user activities having one or more characteristics” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “indicating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may indicate a pattern that the particular software component being used using the plurality of logs of user activity of the plurality of software users after a gap of time after one or more other software user activities having one or more characteristics with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind 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 under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 4 of wherein analyzing the one or more particular logs of user activity comprises comparing one or more particular characteristics of the user activity of the one or more particular logs with the one or more characteristics and determining that an amount of time has passed relative to the gap of time, and wherein the particular autodeployment utility score accounts for: a similarity between the one or more particular characteristics and the one or more characteristics, and the amount of time relative to the gap of time” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “analyzing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may
analyze the one or more particular logs of user activity comprises comparing one or more particular characteristics of the user activity of the one or more particular logs with the one or more characteristics and determining that an amount of time has passed relative to the gap of time, and wherein the particular autodeployment utility score accounts for: a similarity between the one or more particular characteristics and the one or more characteristics, and the amount of time relative to the gap of time with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind 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 under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 5 of “wherein the plurality of logs of user activity of the plurality of software users indicate a cluster of software components that are used by same software users, wherein the cluster of software components comprise the first particular software component and a second particular software component” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “analyzing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may indicate a cluster of software components that are used using the plurality of logs of user activity of the plurality of software users by same software users wherein the cluster of software components comprise the first particular software component and a second particular software component with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind 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 under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 5 of “wherein the second particular software component is indicated to be in use by the one or more particular logs of user activity, and wherein the particular autodeployment utility score accounts for the second particular software component that is indicated to be in use” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “analyzing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may indicate the second particular software component to be in use by the one or more particular logs of user activity, and wherein the particular autodeployment utility score accounts for the second particular software component that is indicated to be in use with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind 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 under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 6, 14 and 19 of “analyzing the one or more particular logs of user activity of the particular software user using the machine learning model trained on the plurality of logs of user activity of the plurality of software users to determine the particular autodeployment utility score comprises: wherein the particular autodeployment utility score is based at least in part on the predicted cost, the predicted benefit, and the predicted likelihood that the particular software component will be used” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “analyzing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may analyze the one or more particular logs of user activity of the particular software user using the machine learning model trained on the plurality of logs of user activity of the plurality of software users to determine the particular autodeployment utility score comprises: wherein the particular autodeployment utility score is based at least in part on the predicted cost, the predicted benefit, and the predicted likelihood that the particular software component will be used with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind 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 under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 6, 14 and 19 of “determining a predicted cost, in terms of one or more computing resources, of performing the one or more deployment operations for the particular software component” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine a predicted cost, in terms of one or more computing resources, of performing the one or more deployment operations for the particular software component with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind 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 under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 6, 14 and 19 of “determining a predicted benefit of having the one or more deployment operations performed automatically ahead of time rather than manually upon request” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine a predicted benefit of having the one or more deployment operations performed automatically ahead of time rather than manually upon request with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind 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 under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 6, 14 and 19 of “determining a predicted likelihood that the particular software component will be used by the particular software user” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine a predicted likelihood that the particular software component will be used by the particular software user with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind 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 under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 7 of “wherein the one or more parameters of the one or more conditions indicate one or more weights of one or more utility characteristics for the software component autodeployment setting” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “indicating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may indicate one or more weights of one or more utility characteristics for the software component autodeployment setting using the one or more parameters of the one or more conditions with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind 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 under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 7 of “wherein analyzing the one or more particular logs of user activity of the particular software user using the machine learning model trained on the plurality of logs of user activity of the plurality of software users to determine the particular autodeployment utility score” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “analyzing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may analyze the one or more particular logs of user activity of the particular software user using the machine learning model trained on the plurality of logs of user activity of the plurality of software users to determine the particular autodeployment utility score with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind 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 under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 7 of “determining a plurality of values for a plurality of utility characteristics for implementing the particular software component in the particular computing environment for the particular software user” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine a plurality of values for a plurality of utility characteristics for implementing the particular software component in the particular computing environment for the particular software user with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind 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 under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 7 of “generating one or more weighted utility values by weighting one or more of the plurality of values corresponding to the one or more utility characteristics according to the one or more weights; wherein the particular autodeployment utility score is based at least in part on the one or more weighted utility values” as drafted, is a mathematical operation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “generating values [calculating]” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may generate [calculate] one or more weighted utility values by weighting one or more of the plurality of values corresponding to the one or more utility characteristics according to the one or more weights; wherein the particular autodeployment utility score is based at least in part on the one or more weighted utility values with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operations” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 8 recites additional elements such as “after automatically performing the one or more deployment operations for the particular software component, receiving feedback from the particular software user about the particular software component”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). 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. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 8 recites additional elements such as “updating the machine learning model based at least in part on the feedback”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). 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. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claim 8 of “analyzing logs of user activity of software users to determine autodeployment utility scores using the machine learning model as updated” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “analyzing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may analyze logs of user activity of software users to determine autodeployment utility scores using the machine learning model as updated with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind 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 under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 9, 15 and 20 of “determining that automatically performing the one or more deployment operations for the particular software component would use an amount of resources” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine that automatically performing the one or more deployment operations for the particular software component would use an amount of resources with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind 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 under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 9, 15 and 20 of “determining that the amount of resources for the particular software component is not available in the particular computing environment” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine that the amount of resources for the particular software component is not available in the particular computing environment with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind 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 under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 9, 15 and 20 of “determining a second particular autodeployment utility score for a second particular software component for which deployment has already been performed in the particular computing environment” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine a second particular autodeployment utility score for a second particular software component for which deployment has already been performed in the particular computing environment with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind 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 under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 9, 15 and 20 recite additional elements such as “based at least in part on the second particular autodeployment utility score and based at least in part on determining that the amount of resources for the particular software component are not available in the particular computing environment, automatically removing the second particular software component from the particular computing environment before automatically performing the one or more deployment operations for the particular software component”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). 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. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 10 recites additional elements such as “wherein the machine learning model is a first machine learning model that accounts for at least one different utility characteristic than a second machine learning model”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
The limitation of the claim 10 of “analyzing the one or more particular logs of user activity of the particular software user using the second machine learning model trained on a plurality of logs of user activity of a plurality of software users” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “analyzing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may analyze the one or more particular logs of user activity of the particular software user using the second machine learning model trained on a plurality of logs of user activity of a plurality of software users with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind 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 under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 10 of “determine: a second particular autodeployment utility score comprising a second predicted degree of utility of the particular software component, if deployed, for the particular software user, and one or more other second autodeployment utility scores comprising one or more other second predicted degrees of utility of the one or more other software components, if deployed, for the particular software user; wherein the second predicted degree of utility is different than the predicted degree of utility” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine a second particular autodeployment utility score comprising a second predicted degree of utility of the particular software component, if deployed, for the particular software user, and one or more other second autodeployment utility scores comprising one or more other second predicted degrees of utility of the one or more other software components, if deployed, for the particular software user; wherein the second predicted degree of utility is different than the predicted degree of utility with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind 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 under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 10 recites additional elements such as “wherein said automatically performing the one or more deployment operations is further based at least in part on the second predicted degree of utility”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). 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. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-20 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-20 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1, 11 and 16 respectively.
Reasons for Allowance
4. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior-art, Skubacz (US PGPub 20210240170), in view of Hu (US PGPub 20120030658), in view of Rothschiller (US Patent 11762537), Kulshreshtha (US Patent 10601683), in view of Davies (US PGPub 20220327172) failed to disclose of a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, for one or more first software users, one or more parameters of one or more first conditions of a software component autodeployment setting, wherein the software component autodeployment setting at least partially controls whether to automatically deploy any candidate software components to one or more computing environments of the one or more first software users, wherein the software component autodeployment setting for the one or more first software users is different than another software component autodeployment setting available for the one or more first software users; wherein the other software component autodeployment setting comprises one or more other parameters for the one or more first conditions; wherein at least one of the one or more first conditions is not specific to any candidate software component; storing candidate software component deployment metadata identifying a plurality of software components available for deployment in a particular computing environment of a particular software user of the one or more first software users; wherein the plurality of software components available for deployment comprise a particular software component and one or more other software components; wherein the particular computing environment of the particular software user does not include the particular software component and does not include the one or more other software components; receiving one or more particular logs of user activity in the particular computing environment by the particular software user; analyzing the one or more particular logs of user activity of the particular software user using a machine learning model trained on a plurality of logs of user activity of a plurality of software users to determine: a particular autodeployment utility score comprising a predicted degree of utility of the particular software component, if deployed, for the particular software user, and one or more other autodeployment utility scores comprising one or more other predicted degrees of utility of the one or more other software components, if deployed, for the particular software user; based at least in part on determining that the one or more first conditions of the software component autodeployment setting are satisfied, and based at least in part on the particular autodeployment utility score and the one or more other autodeployment utility scores, automatically performing one or more deployment operations for the particular software component in the particular computing environment of the particular software user without automatically performing one or more deployment operations for the one or more other software components; wherein the one or more first conditions would not be satisfied based on the one or more other parameters, as recited by the independent claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior-art found, Skubacz, Hu, Rothschiller, Kulshreshtha and Davies discloses of a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, for one or more first software users, one or more parameters of one or more first conditions of a software component autodeployment setting, wherein the software component autodeployment setting at least partially controls whether to automatically deploy any candidate software components to one or more computing environments of the one or more first software users, wherein the software component autodeployment setting for the one or more first software users is different than another software component autodeployment setting available for the one or more first software users; wherein the other software component autodeployment setting comprises one or more other parameters for the one or more first conditions; storing candidate software component deployment metadata identifying a plurality of software components available for deployment in a particular computing environment of a particular software user of the one or more first software users; wherein the plurality of software components available for deployment comprise a particular software component and one or more other software components; receiving one or more particular logs of user activity in the particular computing environment by the particular software user; analyzing the one or more particular logs of user activity of the particular software user using a machine learning model trained on a plurality of logs of user activity of a plurality of software users to determine: a particular autodeployment utility score comprising a predicted degree of utility of the particular software component, if deployed, for the particular software user, and one or more other autodeployment utility scores comprising one or more other predicted degrees of utility of the one or more other software components, if deployed, for the particular software user; automatically performing one or more deployment operations for the particular software component in the particular computing environment of the particular software user without automatically performing one or more deployment operations for the one or more other software components; wherein the one or more first conditions would not be satisfied based on the one or more other parameters.
Individually, Skubacz teaches that it provides and maintains a common generic machine tool model GMTM which is extensible and can be used as a basis to develop industrial applications. This generic machine tool model GMTM can form a superset of the existing machine tool data standards and can provide a schema for describing drive parameters as well as kinematic transformations of the machine tool MT. The method can automate the deployment of generic industrial applications into specific manufacturing environments ME using different machines, configurations and data protocols. The method can automate the generation of instances of the generic machine tool model GMTM corresponding to specific manufacturing environments ME.
Hu teaches that the automatic deployment setting may comprise setting of whether to comprehensively deploy the new software update to user devices other than the user devices to which the new software update 53 has been deployed and/or setting of to which user devices the new software update will be automatically deployed etc. For example, when the automatic deployment setting unit 52 finds there is defect in the new software update 53 based on the execution information of test cases and analysis result thereof acquired from the portion of user devices, it applies an automatic deployment setting that will not comprehensively deploy the new software update for the time being, and waits the software developer to improve the software update 53. Again, for example, for user devices which are determined as those substantially didn't use the function involved in the new software update based on execution information of test cases and analysis result thereof acquired from the portion of user devices, the automatic deployment setting unit 52 applies an automatic deployment setting that will not deploy the new software update 53 to those user devices etc. the automatic deployment unit 51 performs the automatic deployment of new software update 53 to other user devices based on setting of the automatic deployment setting unit 52.
Rothschiller teaches that the tab grouping determination unit 375 is configured to group tabs associated with a particular project or task in some implementations. In such an implementation, the tab grouping determination unit 375 may utilize a machine learning model that is trained to analyze the activity of the user within the browser application and to recognize patterns in usage to predict that a particular tab is associated with a particular project or task. The machine learning model may analyze the browsing history of the user when making a prediction whether a particular tab is associated with a particular project or task. The tab grouping determination unit 375 may provide the tab management unit 370 with a name of the project or task for the tab group, and the tab management unit 370 may create a new tab group based on the name.
Kulshreshtha teaches that the following detailed description is directed to technologies for improving the availability of a distributed application through the use of diversity scores (which might be referred to herein simply as “scores”) for the application that indicate the extent to which the configuration of hosts implementing the application complies with best practices for maximizing availability of the application. Through an implementation of the disclosed technologies, the configuration for redundant dependencies for an application can be identified and, potentially, modified to minimize the risk of correlated failure of the hosts that implement the application. This can improve the availability (i.e. the extent to which the application is operational) of the application. Technical benefits other than those specifically mentioned herein can also be realized through an implementation of the disclosed technologies.
Davies teaches that In some embodiments, a reach factor of the overall digital maturity score is based on the usage of the system by users, the key applications used by the users, and the custom applications deployed on the system, wherein a workloads factor of the overall digital maturity score is based on the usage of the first application and the usage of the second application, wherein an automation factor of the overall digital maturity score is based on the workflow definitions, orchestrations, integrations, and the custom applications deployed on the system, and wherein digital maturity sub-scores are determined for each of the reach factor, the workloads factor, and the automation factor.
However, the prior art, Skubacz, Hu, Rothschiller, Kulshreshtha and Davies failed to disclose the allowable subject matter as “wherein at least one of the one or more first conditions is not specific to any candidate software component, wherein the particular computing environment of the particular software user does not include the particular software component and does not include the one or more other software components; based at least in part on determining that the one or more first conditions of the software component autodeployment setting are satisfied, and based at least in part on the particular autodeployment utility score and the one or more other autodeployment utility scores, automatically performing one or more deployment operations for the particular software component in the particular computing environment of the particular software user”.
Claim 11 is the product claim, similar to claim 1, and Claim 16 is the system claim, similar to claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-20 contain allowable subject matter.
5. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE UK JEON whose telephone number is (571)270-3649. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAE U JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193