DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application submitted on April 25, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
In the interest of facilitating compact prosecution, the Examiner kindly asks the Applicant’s representative to authorize Internet communications with the Examiner by submitting Form PTO/SB/439 using Patent Center.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: MANAGING DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM ADJUSTMENT USING DISTANCE MATRICES.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 14, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4, 14, and 19 recite “the first components.” It should read -- the first components of the first data processing system --.
Claims 4, 14, and 19 recite “the second components.” It should read -- the second components of the second data processing system --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-3, 11, 12, 16, and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 15, 16, and 20 of co-pending Application No. 18/646,158 (hereinafter “‘158”). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1-3, 11, 12, 16, and 17 of the instant application define an obvious variation of the invention claimed in ‘158.
Examiner respectfully submits the relevant portions of MPEP §§ 804(II)(B)(3) and 804(II)(B)(4) with emphasis added for purposes of convenience in discussion and illustration:
MPEP § 804(II)(B) Nonstatutory Double Patenting
A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
MPEP § 804(II)(B)(3) Obviousness Analysis
Any nonstatutory double patenting rejection made under the obviousness analysis should make clear:
(A) The differences between the inventions defined by the conflicting claims – a claim in the patent compared to a claim in the application; and
(B) The reasons why a person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the invention defined in the claim at issue would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the patent.
MPEP § 804(II)(B)(4) One-Way Test for Distinctness
If the patent term filing date of an application under examination is the same or later than that of a reference application or patent, only a one-way determination of distinctness is needed in resolving the issue of double patenting, i.e., whether the invention claimed in the application would have been anticipated by, or an obvious variation of, the invention claimed in the reference application or patent. See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 1435, 46 USPQ2d 1226, 1231-32 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The court in Berg applied a one-way test where an applicant filed two separate applications even though all claims could have been filed in a single application, because the applicant’s action could have resulted in an improper timewise extension of rights if one patent expired later than the other. If a claimed invention in the application would have been obvious over a claimed invention in the patent, there would be an unjustified timewise extension of the patent and a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is proper. According to the Berg court, improperly extending the patent term “is precisely the result that the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting was created to prevent.” Id.
Similarly, even if the application under examination has the earlier patent term filing date, only a one-way determination of distinctness is needed to support a double patenting rejection in the absence of a finding: (A) that “the PTO is solely responsible for any delays” in prosecution of that application (In re Hubbell, 709 F.3d 1140, 1150, 106 USPQ2d 1032, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 2013)); and (B) that the applicant could not have filed the conflicting claims in a single (i.e., the earlier-filed) application (In re Kaplan, 789 F.2d 1574, 229 USPQ 678 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
It is noted that both ‘158 and the instant application were filed on the same date and thus, are co-pending. It is also noted that both ‘158 and the instant application were filed by the same inventive entity and by a common assignee/owner. Claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 15, 16, and 20 of ‘158 contain every limitation of Claims 1-3, 11, 12, 16, and 17 of the instant application and thus, anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claims of the instant application therefore are not patentably distinct from the co-pending claims and as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting. A claim is not patentably distinct from a co-pending claim if the claim is anticipated by the co-pending claim.
Thus, Claims 1-3, 11, 12, 16, and 17 of the instant application are obvious over Claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 15, 16, and 20 of ‘158 and as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting.
Claim 1 of the instant application as shown in the table below recites all the limitations of Claim 1 of ‘158. The further limitations recited in Claim 1 of ‘158 are boldfaced for the Applicant’s convenience. Claims 5, 6, 11, 15, 16, and 20 of ‘158 are not shown with Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, 16, and 17 of the instant application for the purpose of brevity.
Co-Pending Application No. 18/646,158
Instant Application No. 18/646,148
1. A method for managing deployments that provide computer-implemented services using one or more data processing systems, the method comprising:
1. A method for managing data processing systems, the method comprising:
obtaining deployment data, the deployment data comprising first deployment data of a first deployment of the deployments and second deployment data of a second deployment of the deployments;
obtaining system data, the system data comprising first system data of a first data processing system of the data processing systems and second system data of a second data processing system of the data processing systems;
using the first deployment data and the second deployment data to calculate a similarity value, the similarity value indicating a similarity between the first deployment and the second deployment;
using the first system data and the second system data to calculate a similarity value for the first data processing system and the second data processing system;
using the similarity value to determine risks associated with deploying the second deployment;
generating deployment instructions based on the risks; and
generating one or more system adjustment instructions using the similarity value; and
executing the deployment instructions to cause the one or more data processing systems to deploy the second deployment or cause the one or more data processing systems to maintain the first deployment.
causing, based on the one or more system adjustment instructions, adjustments to at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the deployment manager” at line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “the data processing system manager” for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 17-20 depend on Claim 16. Therefore, Claims 17-20 suffer the same deficiency as Claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 1 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is a process (a series of steps or acts), and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites the limitations:
(a) using the first system data and the second system data to calculate a similarity value for the first data processing system and the second data processing system; and
(b) generating one or more system adjustment instructions using the similarity value.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating first system data and second system data in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to calculate a similarity value. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the similarity value in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate system adjustment instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element:
(1) obtaining system data, the system data comprising first system data of a first data processing system of the data processing systems and second system data of a second data processing system of the data processing systems.
The additional element (1) is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and thus, is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering, and, as such, the additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional element amounts to necessary data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(2) causing, based on the one or more system adjustment instructions, adjustments to at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system.
The additional element (2) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element recites only the idea of adjusting at least one of a first data processing system and a second data processing system without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the adjusting solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of adjusting at least one of a first data processing system and a second data processing system with no restriction on how the adjusting is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the adjusting, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional element:
(1) obtaining system data, the system data comprising first system data of a first data processing system of the data processing systems and second system data of a second data processing system of the data processing systems.
The additional element (1) simply appends a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to obtain system data. Therefore, the limitation remains an insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(2) causing, based on the one or more system adjustment instructions, adjustments to at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system.
The additional element (2) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of adjusting at least one of a first data processing system and a second data processing system with no restriction on how the adjusting is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the adjusting, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent an insignificant extra-solution activity and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10 are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein using the first system data and the second system data to calculate the similarity value comprises:
(b) generating a first system distance matrix using the first system data and a second system distance matrix using the second system data,
(c) wherein the similarity value is a distance score between the first system distance matrix and the second system distance matrix.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 3 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the distance score is a Wasserstein distance between the first system distance matrix and the second system distance matrix.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 4 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the first system data comprises first components of the first data processing system and first attributes of each of the first components, and the second system data comprises second components of the second data processing system and second attributes of each of the second components.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 5 recites the limitations:
(a) generating a similarity matrix for the data processing systems, the data processing systems comprising the first data processing system, the second data processing system, and other ones of the data processing systems different from the first data processing system and the second data processing system, and the similarity matrix being a distance matrix;
(b) storing the similarity value for the first data processing system and the second data processing system into the similarity matrix; and
(c) providing the similarity matrix to an entity associated with management of the data processing systems.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 6 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein the similarity value indicates that the second data processing system comprises similar components and configurations as the first data processing system, and
(b) wherein causing the adjustments comprises:
(c) grouping the first data processing system and the second data processing system into a deployment to jointly provide computer implemented services previously provided by only the first data processing system.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 7 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein causing the adjustments comprises:
(b) executing the one or more system adjustment instructions to automatically, without user intervention, cause the at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system to process the adjustments.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 8 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein causing the at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system to process the adjustments comprises causing the at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system to execute one or more configuration changes.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 9 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein causing the adjustments comprises:
(b) providing the one or more system adjustment instructions to an entity associated with the data processing systems for the entity to manually adjust the at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 10 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein manually adjusting the at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system comprises modifying one or more hardware components of the least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system.
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claims 5 and 9 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 7, 8, and 10 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and thus, fail to add an inventive concept to the claims (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 2-10 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 1-10 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
<<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>>
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 11 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium, which is an article of manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 11 recites the limitations:
(a) using the first system data and the second system data to calculate a similarity value for the first data processing system and the second data processing system; and
(b) generating one or more system adjustment instructions using the similarity value.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) [a] non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing data processing systems, the operations comprising.
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating first system data and second system data in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to calculate a similarity value. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the similarity value in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate system adjustment instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element:
(1) [a] non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing data processing systems, the operations comprising.
The additional element (1) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The non-transitory machine-readable medium and processor are used as a tool to perform the various steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(2) obtaining system data, the system data comprising first system data of a first data processing system of the data processing systems and second system data of a second data processing system of the data processing systems.
The additional element (2) is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and thus, is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering, and, as such, the additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional element amounts to necessary data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(3) causing, based on the one or more system adjustment instructions, adjustments to at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system.
The additional element (3) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element recites only the idea of adjusting at least one of a first data processing system and a second data processing system without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the adjusting solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of adjusting at least one of a first data processing system and a second data processing system with no restriction on how the adjusting is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the adjusting, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional element:
(1) [a] non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing data processing systems, the operations comprising.
The additional element (1) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(2) obtaining system data, the system data comprising first system data of a first data processing system of the data processing systems and second system data of a second data processing system of the data processing systems.
The additional element (2) simply appends a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to obtain system data. Therefore, the limitation remains an insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(3) causing, based on the one or more system adjustment instructions, adjustments to at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system.
The additional element (3) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of adjusting at least one of a first data processing system and a second data processing system with no restriction on how the adjusting is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the adjusting, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, an insignificant extra-solution activity, and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 12-15 are dependent on Claim 11, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 11.
Claim 12 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein using the first system data and the second system data to calculate the similarity value comprises:
(b) generating a first system distance matrix using the first system data and a second system distance matrix using the second system data,
(c) wherein the similarity value is a distance score between the first system distance matrix and the second system distance matrix.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 13 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the distance score is a Wasserstein distance between the first system distance matrix and the second system distance matrix.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 14 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the first system data comprises first components of the first data processing system and first attributes of each of the first components, and the second system data comprises second components of the second data processing system and second attributes of each of the second components.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 15 recites the limitations:
(a) generating a similarity matrix for the data processing systems, the data processing systems comprising the first data processing system, the second data processing system, and other ones of the data processing systems different from the first data processing system and the second data processing system, and the similarity matrix being a distance matrix;
(b) storing the similarity value for the first data processing system and the second data processing system into the similarity matrix; and
(c) providing the similarity matrix to an entity associated with management of the data processing systems.
Claims 12, 13, and 15 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 15 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and thus, fail to add an inventive concept to the claims (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 12-15 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 11 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 11-15 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
<<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>>
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 16 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 16 is directed to a data processing system manager, which is a machine, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 16 recites the limitations:
(a) using the first system data and the second system data to calculate a similarity value for the first data processing system and the second data processing system; and
(b) generating one or more system adjustment instructions using the similarity value.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) a processor; and
(2) a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the deployment manager to perform operations for managing data processing systems, the operations comprising.
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating first system data and second system data in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to calculate a similarity value. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the similarity value in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate system adjustment instructions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) a processor; and
(2) a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the deployment manager to perform operations for managing data processing systems, the operations comprising.
The additional elements (1) and (2) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The processor and memory are used as a tool to perform the various steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(3) obtaining system data, the system data comprising first system data of a first data processing system of the data processing systems and second system data of a second data processing system of the data processing systems.
The additional element (3) is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and thus, is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering, and, as such, the additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional element amounts to necessary data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(4) causing, based on the one or more system adjustment instructions, adjustments to at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system.
The additional element (4) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element recites only the idea of adjusting at least one of a first data processing system and a second data processing system without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the adjusting solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of adjusting at least one of a first data processing system and a second data processing system with no restriction on how the adjusting is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the adjusting, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) a processor; and
(2) a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the deployment manager to perform operations for managing data processing systems, the operations comprising.
The additional elements (1) and (2) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(3) obtaining system data, the system data comprising first system data of a first data processing system of the data processing systems and second system data of a second data processing system of the data processing systems.
The additional element (3) simply appends a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to obtain system data. Therefore, the limitation remains an insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(4) causing, based on the one or more system adjustment instructions, adjustments to at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system.
The additional element (4) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of adjusting at least one of a first data processing system and a second data processing system with no restriction on how the adjusting is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the adjusting, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, an insignificant extra-solution activity, and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 17-20 are dependent on Claim 16, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 16.
Claim 17 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein using the first system data and the second system data to calculate the similarity value comprises:
(b) generating a first system distance matrix using the first system data and a second system distance matrix using the second system data,
(c) wherein the similarity value is a distance score between the first system distance matrix and the second system distance matrix.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 18 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the distance score is a Wasserstein distance between the first system distance matrix and the second system distance matrix.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 19 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the first system data comprises first components of the first data processing system and first attributes of each of the first components, and the second system data comprises second components of the second data processing system and second attributes of each of the second components.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 20 recites the limitations:
(a) generating a similarity matrix for the data processing systems, the data processing systems comprising the first data processing system, the second data processing system, and other ones of the data processing systems different from the first data processing system and the second data processing system, and the similarity matrix being a distance matrix;
(b) storing the similarity value for the first data processing system and the second data processing system into the similarity matrix; and
(c) providing the similarity matrix to an entity associated with management of the data processing systems.
Claims 17, 18, and 20 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 20 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 19 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and thus, fail to add an inventive concept to the claims (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 17-20 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 16 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 16-20 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0306884 (hereinafter “Mandal”) in view of US 2018/0196851 (hereinafter “Srivastava”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to managing data processing systems using similarities and/or differences identified between the data processing systems (specification, paragraph [0001]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Mandal is generally directed to predicting software application framework deployment changes for incident mitigation (Mandal, paragraph [0001]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Srivastava is generally directed to automatically generating and modifying façade APIs used in data storage systems (Srivastava, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Mandal and Srivastava are both analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems or are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 1, Mandal discloses:
A method (paragraph [0094], “Methods […] of the present disclosure may be embodied by any of a variety of devices.”) for managing data processing systems, the method comprising:
[Examiner’s Remarks: Note that the limitation “managing data processing systems” in the preamble of the claim is not given any patentable weight because it is merely a statement of purpose or intended use of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2111.02.]
obtaining system data, the system data comprising first system data of a first data processing system of the data processing systems and second system data of a second data processing system of the data processing systems (paragraph [0035], “Computing devices operating on, or otherwise supporting, such multi-layer service-oriented platforms routinely generate, transmit, and store millions of data objects (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0096], “The incident mitigation system 101 may identify one or more data objects associated with the incident and originating from one or [more] sources (e.g., an application, a service, etc.) (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0107], “[…] the prediction module 116 is configured to receive, from the connected data module 114, relation data for a plurality of data objects [obtaining system data] associated with an incident identifier and generate a candidate incident mitigation dataset based on topology graph structure for the plurality of data objects associated with the incident identifier and/or the relation data (e.g., which may include […] relationships between code deployment data objects [the system data comprising first system data of a first data processing system of the data processing systems and second system data of a second data processing system of the data processing systems] […] (emphasis added).”); and
using the first system data and the second system data to calculate a similarity value for the first data processing system and the second data processing system (paragraph [0082], “The term ‘semantic similarity score’ refers to a value indicating the relevance of a data object to another data object based on the similarity between certain features of the data objects [a similarity value for the first data processing system and the second data processing system]. In some embodiments, the semantic similarity score for a first data object relative to a second data object is generated based on the description attribute data field for each data object (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0108], “[…] the ranking module 118 may leverage a ranking framework that includes programmatically generating one or more scores (e.g., semantic similarity score, topological distance score, temporal score, or the like) for candidate code deployment data objects [using the first system data and the second system data to calculate a similarity value] and/or candidate code modification data objects in a candidate incident mitigation dataset […] (emphasis added).”).
Mandal does not explicitly disclose:
generating one or more system adjustment instructions using the similarity value; and
causing, based on the one or more system adjustment instructions, adjustments to at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system.
However, Srivastava discloses:
generating one or more system adjustment instructions using the similarity value (paragraph [0021]1, “The tenant configuration module 210 receives configuration requests from onboarding tenants. Configuration requests can be associated with new tenants or with previously existing tenants. Additionally, configuration requests can include modifications to a data tenant’s role, type, or identifier (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0022], “The tenant modification identifier module 215 identifies the kind and scope of a change of a configuration request, and additionally identifies if an existing data tenant corresponds to the configuration request based on characteristics of the configuration request and existing data tenants. In one embodiment, an existing data tenant may be identified as a match to a configuration request if the tenant name associated with the modification request matches with the tenant name or names of the existing data tenant. A match may be determined based on a threshold similarity score generated for the configuration request and the existing data tenant (emphasis added).”); and
[1Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Srivastava discloses that the tenant configuration module receives configuration requests from onboarding tenants. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the configuration requests are generated first in order to be received by the tenant configuration module.]
causing, based on the one or more system adjustment instructions, adjustments to at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system (paragraph [0027], “FIG. 3B illustrates an example of a user query to a façade API 225 after a configuration request is made by a data tenant to add a tenant identifier 123 to an existing data tenant. The parameters of the façade API 225 are updated to include an endpoint for the 123 identifier [causing, based on the one or more system adjustment instructions, adjustments to at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system]. When a client sends a façade query for all data associated with the data tenant to the façade API 225, the façade API 225 now formats the direct query to include the 123 identifier before sending the direct query to the direct data API 220 (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Mandal and Srivastava are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Srivastava into the teaching of Mandal to include “generating one or more system adjustment instructions using the similarity value; and causing, based on the one or more system adjustment instructions, adjustments to at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the operating structure of data processing systems (Srivastava, paragraph [0003]).
Claim 11 is a non-transitory machine-readable medium claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 1). Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 16 is a data processing system manager claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 1). Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claims 2-5, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal in view of Srivastava as applied to Claims 1, 11, and 16 above, and further in view of US 2022/0391662 (hereinafter “Sawal”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to managing data processing systems using similarities and/or differences identified between the data processing systems (specification, paragraph [0001]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Sawal is generally directed to gauging differences between network configurations (Sawal, paragraph [0002]). Thus, Sawal is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Mandal discloses “first system,” “second system,” and “using the first system data and the second system data to calculate the similarity value,” but the combination of Mandal and Srivastava does not explicitly disclose:
wherein using the first system data and the second system data to calculate the similarity value comprises:
generating a first system distance matrix using the first system data and a second system distance matrix using the second system data,
wherein the similarity value is a distance score between the first system distance matrix and the second system distance matrix.
However, Sawal discloses:
generating a first […] distance matrix using the first […] data and a second […] distance matrix using the second […] data (Figure 9; paragraph [0069], “FIG. 9 graphically illustrates generation of a difference matrix, according to embodiments of the present disclosure. The graph 905 depicts a 2D set of representations and the grid 910 represents the distance matrix.”),
wherein the similarity value is a distance score between the first […] distance matrix and the second […] distance matrix (Figure 10; paragraph [0077], “FIG. 10 graphically depicts a comparison 1020 between a first difference matrix 1005 and a second difference matrix 1010 to produce comparison valuation (e.g., matrix 1015), according to embodiments of the present disclosure. As noted above, the comparison may comprise using a Wasserstein distance metric and Optimal Transport technique to obtain a comparison value.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Sawal is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sawal into the combined teachings of Mandal and Srivastava to include “wherein using the first system data and the second system data to calculate the similarity value comprises: generating a first system distance matrix using the first system data and a second system distance matrix using the second system data, wherein the similarity value is a distance score between the first system distance matrix and the second system distance matrix.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize a comparison technique, such as an Optimal transport technique with Wasserstein distance, utilizing semantic and contextual information from systems to determine a system difference between two systems (Sawal, paragraph [0045]).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated; and Mandal discloses “first system” and “second system,” but the combination of Mandal and Srivastava does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the distance score is a Wasserstein distance between the first system distance matrix and the second system distance matrix.
However, Sawal discloses:
wherein the distance score is a Wasserstein distance between the first […] distance matrix and the second […] distance matrix (Figure 10; paragraph [0077], “FIG. 10 graphically depicts a comparison 1020 between a first difference matrix 1005 and a second difference matrix 1010 to produce comparison valuation (e.g., matrix 1015), according to embodiments of the present disclosure. As noted above, the comparison may comprise using a Wasserstein distance metric and Optimal Transport technique to obtain a comparison value.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Sawal is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sawal into the combined teachings of Mandal and Srivastava to include “wherein the distance score is a Wasserstein distance between the first system distance matrix and the second system distance matrix.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize a comparison technique, such as an Optimal transport technique with Wasserstein distance, utilizing semantic and contextual information from systems to determine a system difference between two systems (Sawal, paragraph [0045]).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 3 is incorporated; and Mandal further discloses:
wherein the first system data comprises first components of the first data processing system and first attributes of each of the first components, and the second system data comprises second components of the second data processing system and second attributes of each of the second components (paragraph [0072], “The term ‘code deployment data object’ refers to a data object associated with a code deployment. The code deployment data object may describe attributes of the code deployment. In some embodiments, the code deployment data object includes a plurality of attribute data fields that include the attributes of the code deployment.”; paragraph [0073], “The term ‘code deployment feature’ describes an attribute data field of a code deployment data object and/or an embedded representation of a natural language format field of the code deployment data object. For example, code deployment features describe any data, object, detail, attribute, embedding transformation, or the like that is extracted from a code deployment data object (e.g., by a feature extraction model) for use by one or more modules of an incident mitigation system.”).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 4 is incorporated; and Mandal further discloses:
[…] the data processing systems comprising the first data processing system, the second data processing system, and other ones of the data processing systems different from the first data processing system and the second data processing system […] (paragraph [0035], “Computing devices operating on, or otherwise supporting, such multi-layer service-oriented platforms routinely generate, transmit, and store millions of data objects.”; paragraph [0096], “The incident mitigation system 101 may identify one or more data objects associated with the incident and originating from one or [more] sources (e.g., an application, a service, etc.).”).
The combination of Mandal and Srivastava does not explicitly disclose:
generating a similarity matrix for the data processing systems […] and the similarity matrix being a distance matrix;
storing the similarity value for the first data processing system and the second data processing system into the similarity matrix; and
providing the similarity matrix to an entity associated with management of the data processing systems.
However, Sawal discloses:
generating a similarity matrix for the data processing systems […] and the similarity matrix being a distance matrix (Figure 9; paragraph [0069], “FIG. 9 graphically illustrates generation of a difference matrix, according to embodiments of the present disclosure. The graph 905 depicts a 2D set of representations and the grid 910 represents the distance matrix.”);
storing the similarity value for the first data processing system and the second data processing system into the similarity matrix (Figure 9; paragraph [0069], “FIG. 9 graphically illustrates generation of a difference matrix, according to embodiments of the present disclosure. The graph 905 depicts a 2D set of representations and the grid 910 represents the distance matrix. As illustrated a configuration path sentence representation (e.g., x1) is compared with every other representation (e.g., x2, x3, x4 …). Their differences are stored in a difference matrix, such as the graphically depicted one 910 in FIG. 9.”); and
providing the similarity matrix to an entity associated with management of the data processing systems (paragraph [0035], “Due to the complexity of modern network designs, a number of tools have been created to help in the design, operation, management, and/or troubleshooting of physical & virtual network topologies. As noted above, one such tool is the SmartFabric Director (SFD), by Dell Technologies Inc. (also Dell EMC) of Round Rock, Texas, which dramatically simplifies the definition, provisioning, monitoring, and troubleshooting of physical underlay fabrics with intelligent integration, visibility, and control for virtualized overlays.”; paragraph [0077], “FIG. 10 graphically depicts a comparison 1020 between a first difference matrix 1005 and a second difference matrix 1010 to produce comparison valuation (e.g., matrix 1015), according to embodiments of the present disclosure. As noted above, the comparison may comprise using a Wasserstein distance metric and Optimal Transport technique to obtain a comparison value.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Sawal is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sawal into the combined teachings of Mandal and Srivastava to include “generating a similarity matrix for the data processing systems […] and the similarity matrix being a distance matrix; storing the similarity value for the first data processing system and the second data processing system into the similarity matrix; and providing the similarity matrix to an entity associated with management of the data processing systems.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize a comparison technique, such as an Optimal transport technique with Wasserstein distance, utilizing semantic and contextual information from systems to determine a system difference between two systems (Sawal, paragraph [0045]).
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated; and the combination of Mandal and Sawal does not explicitly disclose:
wherein causing the adjustments comprises:
executing the one or more system adjustment instructions to automatically, without user intervention, cause the at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system to process the adjustments.
However, Srivastava discloses:
wherein causing the adjustments comprises:
executing the one or more system adjustment instructions to automatically, without user intervention, cause the at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system to process the adjustments (paragraph [0028], “FIG. 4 is a flow chart illustrating a method of automatically modifying a façade API, in accordance with an embodiment. The tenant configuration module 210 receives a data tenant configuration request 405.”; paragraph [0029], “When the façade API 225 receives a request from a client 430, the façade API 225 translates the request to one or more direct queries 435 based on the modified parameters. The one or more direct queries are executed 440 to retrieve information from the dataset management system 100.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Srivastava is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Srivastava into the combined teachings of Mandal and Sawal to include “wherein causing the adjustments comprises: executing the one or more system adjustment instructions to automatically, without user intervention, cause the at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system to process the adjustments.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the operating structure of data processing systems (Srivastava, paragraph [0003]).
As per Claim 8, the rejection of Claim 7 is incorporated; and the combination of Mandal and Sawal does not explicitly disclose:
wherein causing the at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system to process the adjustments comprises causing the at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system to execute one or more configuration changes.
However, Srivastava discloses:
wherein causing the at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system to process the adjustments comprises causing the at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system to execute one or more configuration changes (paragraph [0028], “FIG. 4 is a flow chart illustrating a method of automatically modifying a façade API, in accordance with an embodiment. The tenant configuration module 210 receives a data tenant configuration request 405.”; paragraph [0029], “When the façade API 225 receives a request from a client 430, the façade API 225 translates the request to one or more direct queries 435 based on the modified parameters. The one or more direct queries are executed 440 to retrieve information from the dataset management system 100.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Srivastava is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Srivastava into the combined teachings of Mandal and Sawal to include “wherein causing the at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system to process the adjustments comprises causing the at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system to execute one or more configuration changes.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the operating structure of data processing systems (Srivastava, paragraph [0003]).
Claims 12-15 are non-transitory machine-readable medium claims corresponding to the method claims hereinabove (Claims 2-5, respectively). Therefore, Claims 12-15 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 2-5, respectively.
Claims 17-20 are data processing system manager claims corresponding to the method claims hereinabove (Claims 2-5, respectively). Therefore, Claims 17-20 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 2-5, respectively.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal in view of Srivastava and Sawal as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2023/0236810 (hereinafter “Finnigan”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to managing data processing systems using similarities and/or differences identified between the data processing systems (specification, paragraph [0001]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Finnigan is generally directed to determining system topology of microservice-based application deployments (Finnigan, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Finnigan is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated; and Mandal further discloses:
wherein the similarity value indicates that the second data processing system comprises similar components and configurations as the first data processing system (paragraph [0082], “The term ‘semantic similarity score’ refers to a value indicating the relevance of a data object to another data object based on the similarity between certain features of the data objects. In some embodiments, the semantic similarity score for a first data object relative to a second data object is generated based on the description attribute data field for each data object.”).
The combination of Mandal, Srivastava, and Sawal does not explicitly disclose:
wherein causing the adjustments comprises:
grouping the first data processing system and the second data processing system into a deployment to jointly provide computer implemented services previously provided by only the first data processing system.
However, Finnigan discloses:
wherein causing the adjustments comprises:
grouping the first data processing system and the second data processing system into a deployment to jointly provide computer implemented services previously provided by only the first data processing system (paragraph [0024], “The recommendations can take the form of deployment scenarios of suggested application component deployment groupings indicating which components should be deployed together (i.e., jointly in one location or on one set of computing resources) and which components should be deployed separately (i.e., independently at different location or on different sets of computing resources).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Finnigan is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Finnigan into the combined teachings of Mandal, Srivastava, and Sawal to include “wherein causing the adjustments comprises: grouping the first data processing system and the second data processing system into a deployment to jointly provide computer implemented services previously provided by only the first data processing system.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to merge application components that are in frequent communication so that they can be deployed jointly (Finnigan, paragraph [0017]).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal in view of Srivastava and Sawal as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2011/0296382 (hereinafter “Pasternak”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to managing data processing systems using similarities and/or differences identified between the data processing systems (specification, paragraph [0001]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Pasternak is generally directed to performing dynamic software testing using test entity (Pasternak, paragraph [0002]). Thus, Pasternak is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 9, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated; and the combination of Mandal, Srivastava, and Sawal does not explicitly disclose:
wherein causing the adjustments comprises:
providing the one or more system adjustment instructions to an entity associated with the data processing systems for the entity to manually adjust the at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system.
However, Pasternak discloses:
wherein causing the adjustments comprises:
providing the one or more system adjustment instructions to an entity associated with the data processing systems for the entity to manually adjust the at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system (paragraph [0034], “At block 450, modifications are made to the current configuration settings. In one embodiment, modification to configuration settings are made, in runtime, by a user using a script representation (or GUI-representation) provided at the host machine or client machine to make changes to any number of configuration settings, such as changes to software configuration settings (e.g., changing the number of virtual machines, modifying the operating system, etc.), changes to hardware configuration settings (e.g., switching a slower processor for a faster processor, decreasing the size of RAM, etc.).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Pasternak is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Pasternak into the combined teachings of Mandal, Srivastava, and Sawal to include “wherein causing the adjustments comprises: providing the one or more system adjustment instructions to an entity associated with the data processing systems for the entity to manually adjust the at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make modifications to the current configuration settings of a data processing system (Pasternak, paragraph [0034]).
As per Claim 10, the rejection of Claim 9 is incorporated; and the combination of Mandal, Srivastava, and Sawal does not explicitly disclose:
wherein manually adjusting the at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system comprises modifying one or more hardware components of the least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system.
However, Pasternak discloses:
wherein manually adjusting the at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system comprises modifying one or more hardware components of the least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system (paragraph [0034], “At block 450, modifications are made to the current configuration settings. In one embodiment, modification to configuration settings are made, in runtime, by a user using a script representation (or GUI-representation) provided at the host machine or client machine to make changes to any number of configuration settings, such as changes to software configuration settings (e.g., changing the number of virtual machines, modifying the operating system, etc.), changes to hardware configuration settings (e.g., switching a slower processor for a faster processor, decreasing the size of RAM, etc.).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Pasternak is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Pasternak into the combined teachings of Mandal, Srivastava, and Sawal to include “wherein manually adjusting the at least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system comprises modifying one or more hardware components of the least one of the first data processing system and the second data processing system.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make modifications to the current configuration settings of a data processing system (Pasternak, paragraph [0034]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US 2022/0329616 (hereinafter “O’Hearn”) discloses using static analysis for vulnerability detection.
US 2024/0134999 (hereinafter “Madala”) discloses vulnerability proofing of an IHS (Information Handling System) while it is being provisioned for deployment, such as upon receipt at a datacenter.
US 2024/0356953 (hereinafter “Shachar”) discloses managing vulnerabilities presented by data processing systems.
US 2025/0131089 (hereinafter “Gangwani”) discloses identifying and mitigating security risks in computer systems.
US 12,388,858 (hereinafter “Lin”) discloses predicting a probability associated with an unexploited vulnerability.
Bianchin et al., “Similarity Metric for Risk Assessment in IT Change Plans,” 2010 (hereinafter “Bianchin”) discloses a solution to weigh the information available from past executed plans by the similarity calculated in relation with the analyzed change plan.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Qing Chen whose telephone number is 571-270-1071. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/ interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for more information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/Qing Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191