DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 1, in step 1 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the claim is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In step 2A prong 1 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the claim recites a judicial exception. Specifically, the limitations “determining, based on the timeframe value, an overlap between the corresponding phase of the first data operation and a phase of a second data operation; and causing the first and second data operations to be performed according to the timeframe value and the overlap” recite mental processes. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
In step 2A prong 2 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the additional elements, alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application for the following rationale:
The limitations “obtaining a timeframe value that indicates a corresponding phase of a first data operation” represent insignificant, extra-solution activities. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as "activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim" (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The examiner has determined that the limitations “obtaining a timeframe value that indicates a corresponding phase of a first data operation” are directed to mere data gathering activities which is a category of insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In step 2B of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the additional elements, alone or in combination do not recite significantly more than the abstract ideas identified above for the following rationale:
The limitations “obtaining a timeframe value that indicates a corresponding phase of a first data operation” represent insignificant, extra-solution activities and are well-understood, routine, or conventional because they are directed to "receiving or transmitting data" (MPEP 2106.05(d)). These are additional elements that the courts have recognized as well understood, routine, or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). The citation of court cases in the MPEP meets the Berkheimer evidentiary burden since citation of a court case in the MPEP is one of the 4 types of evidentiary support that can be used to prove that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional (see 125 USPQ2d 1649 Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.). Thus, the limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 8, it is a system claim of claim 1, so it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Additionally, claim 8 recites “one or more processors; and memory including computer-executable instructions that, if executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to” which recite generic computing components that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application and do not provide significantly more and recite intended use limitations that do not have patentable weight.
As per claim 15, it is a media/product type claim of claim 1, so it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Additionally, claim 15 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon executable instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of a computer system, cause the computer system to” which are generic computing components that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application and do not provide significantly more.
As per claim 2 (and similarly for claims 9 and 16), it recites “scheduling the corresponding phase of the first data operation and the phase of the second data operation to be performed within a predetermined window” which encompasses a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
As per claim 3 (and similarly for claims 10 and 17), it recites “determining the overlap is based, at least in part, on identifying a relationship indicating the overlap and a time gap between the corresponding phase of the first data operation and the phase of the second data operation” which encompasses a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
As per claim 4 (and similarly for claims 11 and 18), it recites “identifying a conflict associated with the corresponding phase of the first data operation, wherein determining the overlap is based, at least in part, on the conflict identified” which is represent insignificant, extra-solution activities and do not provide significantly more.
As per claim 5 (and similarly for claim 19), it recites “performing an application programming interface (API) to identify the timeframe value in which the first and second data operations are to be performed; and proposing the timeframe value identified to another API.” These additional elements are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea of claim 1 on a computer, or merely uses a computer, with instructions, as a tool to perform the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(f), thus, not indicative of an integration into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amounts to significantly more under Step 2B.
As per claim 6 (and similarly for claims 13 and 20), it recites “determining, based on the timeline value, a gap between a third data operation phase and one of the corresponding phase of the first data operation or the phase of the second data operation; and performing, as a result of the determination, the third data operation phase at a timing according to the gap” which encompasses a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
As per claim 7, it recites “performing an application programming interface (API) to remove one or more secondary phases from a schedule; and scheduling the first and second data operations to be performed according to the timeframe value, the overlap, and a removal of the one or more secondary phases”. These additional elements are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea of claim 1 on a computer, or merely uses a computer, with instructions, as a tool to perform the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(f), thus, not indicative of an integration into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amounts to significantly more under Step 2B.
As per claim 12, it recites, “wherein the conflict is at least one of a blackout period, an automation restriction, a custom hour requirement, a throttle limit, or a stagger limit”, which further describes the abstract idea.
As per claim 14, it recites, “wherein a schedule indicating the timeframe value is stored in the memory”, which further describes the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pacella et al. (US PG Pub No. 2017/0078442 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pacella teaches a method, comprising:
obtaining a timeframe value that indicates a corresponding phase of a first data operation ([0087], schedule for job requests is determined in view of existing schedules pertaining to other job requests and resource utilization associated therewith);
determining, based on the timeframe value, an overlap between the corresponding phase of the first data operation and a phase of a second data operation ([0095], [0097], [0082-83], Figs 5A-B, [0103] each process corresponding to a job request have different resource utilization during different periods of its execution; periods during which there are excess resource consumption/resource inefficiency are identified for all the proce3esses of all the job requests that executing concurrently for a given time period and the resource inefficiencies are stored as inefficiency profiles for each process); and
causing the first and second data operations to be performed according to the timeframe value and the overlap ([0059], [0103] scheduling is done considering the characteristics of the application that is performing operations and other operations that are concurrently happening from other applications).
Regarding claim 2, Pacella teaches scheduling the corresponding phase of the first data operation and the phase of the second data operation to be performed within a predetermined window ([0087], wherein scheduler 112 selects candidate time windows that would fulfil the requirements of job request 201).
Regarding claim 3, Pacella teaches wherein determining the overlap is based, at least in part, on identifying a relationship indicating the overlap and a time gap between the corresponding phase of the first data operation and the phase of the second data operation ([0016]).
Regarding claim 4, Pacella teaches identifying a conflict associated with the corresponding phase of the first data operation, wherein determining the overlap is based, at least in part, on the conflict identified ([0054]).
Regarding claim 5, Pacella teaches performing an application programming interface (API) to identify the timeframe value in which the first and second data operations are to be performed; and proposing the timeframe value identified to another API ([0046]; [0072]).
Regarding claim 6, Pacella teaches determining, based on the timeline value, a gap between a third data operation phase and one of the corresponding phase of the first data operation or the phase of the second data operation; and performing, as a result of the determination, the third data operation phase at a timing according to the gap ([0087], schedule for job requests is determined in view of existing schedules pertaining to other job requests and resource utilization associated therewith).
Regarding claim 7, Pacella teaches performing an application programming interface (API) to remove one or more secondary phases from a schedule; and scheduling the first and second data operations to be performed according to the timeframe value, the overlap, and a removal of the one or more secondary phases ([0063]; [0046]; [0072]).
Regarding claims 8-20, they are the system and medium claims of claims 1-6 above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1-6 above.
Regarding claim 12, Pacella teaches wherein the conflict is at least one of a blackout period, an automation restriction, a custom hour requirement, a throttle limit, or a stagger limit ([0064], different resources can have different operations thresholds, operational thresholds can be execution statistics of different applications).
Regarding claim 14, Pacella teaches wherein a schedule indicating the timeframe value is stored in the memory ([0107], wherein it is inherent that all data in computer systems is stored in memory).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C WAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1012. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/Eric C Wai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights