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 DEPLOYMENT RISK USING DISTANCE MATRICES.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 9 and 10 recite “the first components.” It should read -- the first components of the first deployment --.
Claims 9 and 10 recite “the second components.” It should read -- the second components of the second deployment --.
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, 5, 6, 11, 15, 16, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-3, 11, 12, 16, and 17 of co-pending Application No. 18/646,148 (hereinafter “‘148”) in view of US 2024/0420054 (hereinafter “Bagavathiappan”).
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 ‘148 and the instant application were filed on the same date and thus, are co-pending. It is also noted that both ‘148 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 the instant application recite all the limitations of Claims 1-3, 11, 12, 16, and 17 of ‘148, while also recite further limitations. Specifically, Claim 1 of the instant application, for example, recites the further limitation “using the similarity value to determine risks associated with deploying the second deployment.”
As per Claim 1 of ‘148, for example, Bagavathiappan discloses:
using the similarity value to determine risks associated with deploying the second deployment (paragraph [0034], “At block 338, process 330 determines a risk score for the feature release. The risk score is based on the effects that a similar historical release(s) had on the production environment. For example, based on how the historical changes impacted the stability of the production environment, process 330 calculates a risk score for the changes that releasing the feature into production will cause (emphasis added).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of ‘148 to incorporate the teaching of Bagavathiappan into ‘148 to include “using the similarity value to determine risks associated with deploying the second deployment.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to indicate a reliability risk of implementing a feature into production based on a function reliability of a product (Bagavathiappan, paragraph [0019]).
Furthermore, the other notable differences between the inventions defined by the conflicting claims are:
Claim 1 of the instant application, for example, recites “deployment data,” whereas Claim 1 of ‘148, for example, recites “system data.”
Claim 1 of the instant application, for example, recites “deployment instructions,” whereas Claim 1 of ‘148, for example, recites “system adjustment instructions.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the invention defined in the instant claims would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in the co-pending claims because the “deployment data” and the “system data” are obvious variations over one another and the “deployment instructions” and the “system adjustment instructions” are also obvious variations over one another.
Thus, Claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 15, 16, and 20 of the instant application are obvious over Claims 1-3, 11, 12, 16, and 17 of ‘148 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 ‘148. The further limitations recited in Claim 1 of the instant application are boldfaced for the Applicant’s convenience. Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, 16, and 17 of ‘148 are not shown with Claims 5, 6, 11, 15, 16, and 20 of the instant application for the purpose of brevity.
Co-Pending Application No. 18/646,148
Instant Application No. 18/646,158
1. A method for managing data processing systems, the method comprising:
1. A method for managing deployments that provide computer-implemented services using one or more data processing systems, the method comprising:
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;
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;
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 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 similarity value to determine risks associated with deploying the second deployment;
generating one or more system adjustment instructions using the similarity value; and
generating deployment instructions based on the risks; 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.
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.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation “the metrics of the second components.” 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 “metrics of the second components” for the purpose of further examination.
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 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;
(b) using the similarity value to determine risks associated with deploying the second deployment; and
(c) generating deployment instructions based on the risks.
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, in the preamble:
(1) one or more data processing systems.
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 deployment data and second deployment 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 determine risks. And the limitation (c) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the risks in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate deployment 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, in the preamble:
(1) one or more data processing systems.
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 data processing systems 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 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.
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) 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.
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 deploying the second deployment or maintaining the first deployment without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the deploying or maintaining 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 deploying the second deployment or maintaining the first deployment with no restriction on how the deploying or maintaining is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the deploying or maintaining, 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, in the preamble:
(1) one or more data processing systems.
The additional element (1) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(2) 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.
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 deployment 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) 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.
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 deploying the second deployment or maintaining the first deployment with no restriction on how the deploying or maintaining is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the deploying or maintaining, 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 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 limitation:
(a) wherein the second deployment is different from the first deployment, the first deployment is a currently executing deployment on the one or more data processing systems, and the second deployment is a proposed deployment that has not yet been deployed.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 3 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the second deployment comprises one or more changes to the computer-implemented services provided by the first deployment, and deploying the second deployment comprises changing the first deployment into the second deployment by effectuating the one or more changes to the computer-implemented services provided by the first deployment.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 4 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the risks comprise a health-related risk, a stability-related risk, and a security-related risk to the first deployment should the first deployment be changed into the second deployment.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 5 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein using the first deployment data and the second deployment data to calculate the similarity value comprises:
(b) generating a first deployment distance matrix using the first deployment data and a second deployment distance matrix using the second deployment data,
(c) wherein the similarity value is a distance score between the first deployment distance matrix and the second deployment distance matrix.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 6 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the distance score is a Wasserstein distance between the first deployment distance matrix and the second deployment distance matrix.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 7 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein using the similarity value to determine the risks comprises:
(b) comparing the distance score to one or more predetermined risk threshold values, wherein each of the one or more predetermined risk threshold values is associated with different levels of risks for deploying the second deployment.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 8 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the first deployment data comprises first components of the first deployment and first attributes of each of the first components of the first deployment, and the second deployment data comprises second components of the second deployment and second attributes of each of the second components of the second deployment.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 9 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the first attributes are associated with changes applied to each of the first components and the second attributes are associated with changes applied to each of the second components.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 10 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the first attributes are further associated with metrics of the first components and the second attributes are further associated with the metrics of the second components.
Claims 5-7 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 2 and 3 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.
Claims 4 and 8-10 recite 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 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;
(b) using the similarity value to determine risks associated with deploying the second deployment; and
(c) generating deployment instructions based on the risks.
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, in the preamble:
(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 deployments that provide computer-implemented services using one or more 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 deployment data and second deployment 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 determine risks. And the limitation (c) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the risks in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate deployment 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, in the preamble:
(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 deployments that provide computer-implemented services using one or more 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, processor, and data processing systems are used as tools to perform the various steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(2) 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.
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) 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.
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 deploying the second deployment or maintaining the first deployment without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the deploying or maintaining 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 deploying the second deployment or maintaining the first deployment with no restriction on how the deploying or maintaining is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the deploying or maintaining, 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, in the preamble:
(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 deployments that provide computer-implemented services using one or more 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. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(2) 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.
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 deployment 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) 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.
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 deploying the second deployment or maintaining the first deployment with no restriction on how the deploying or maintaining is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the deploying or maintaining, 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 limitation:
(a) wherein the second deployment is different from the first deployment, the first deployment is a currently executing deployment on the one or more data processing systems, and the second deployment is a proposed deployment that has not yet been deployed.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 13 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the second deployment comprises one or more changes to the computer-implemented services provided by the first deployment, and deploying the second deployment comprises changing the first deployment into the second deployment by effectuating the one or more changes to the computer-implemented services provided by the first deployment.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 14 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the risks comprise a health-related risk, a stability-related risk, and a security-related risk to the first deployment should the first deployment be changed into the second deployment.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 15 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein using the first deployment data and the second deployment data to calculate the similarity value comprises:
(b) generating a first deployment distance matrix using the first deployment data and a second deployment distance matrix using the second deployment data,
(c) wherein the similarity value is a distance score between the first deployment distance matrix and the second deployment distance matrix.
Claim 15 recites 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 12 and 13 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 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 deployment 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 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;
(b) using the similarity value to determine risks associated with deploying the second deployment; and
(c) generating deployment instructions based on the risks.
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 deployments that provide computer-implemented services using one or more 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 deployment data and second deployment 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 determine risks. And the limitation (c) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the risks in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate deployment 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 deployments that provide computer-implemented services using one or more 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, memory, and data processing systems are used as tools to perform the various steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(3) 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.
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) 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.
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 deploying the second deployment or maintaining the first deployment without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the deploying or maintaining 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 deploying the second deployment or maintaining the first deployment with no restriction on how the deploying or maintaining is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the deploying or maintaining, 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 deployments that provide computer-implemented services using one or more 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. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(3) 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.
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 deployment 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) 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.
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 deploying the second deployment or maintaining the first deployment with no restriction on how the deploying or maintaining is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the deploying or maintaining, 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 limitation:
(a) wherein the second deployment is different from the first deployment, the first deployment is a currently executing deployment on the one or more data processing systems, and the second deployment is a proposed deployment that has not yet been deployed.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 18 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the second deployment comprises one or more changes to the computer-implemented services provided by the first deployment, and deploying the second deployment comprises changing the first deployment into the second deployment by effectuating the one or more changes to the computer-implemented services provided by the first deployment.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 19 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the risks comprise a health-related risk, a stability-related risk, and a security-related risk to the first deployment should the first deployment be changed into the second deployment.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 20 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein using the first deployment data and the second deployment data to calculate the similarity value comprises:
(b) generating a first deployment distance matrix using the first deployment data and a second deployment distance matrix using the second deployment data,
(c) wherein the similarity value is a distance score between the first deployment distance matrix and the second deployment distance matrix.
Claim 20 recites 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 17 and 18 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 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 1-4, 11-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0306884 (hereinafter “Mandal”) in view of US 2024/0420054 (hereinafter “Bagavathiappan”).
[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 changes to a client deployment that may lower quality of the services provided by the client deployment (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]). And Bagavathiappan is generally directed to assessing the risk of a release to a production environment (Bagavathiappan, Abstract). Thus, Mandal and Bagavathiappan are both analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems). 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 deployments that provide computer-implemented services using one or more data processing systems, the method comprising:
[Examiner’s Remarks: Note that the limitation “managing deployments that provide computer-implemented services using one or more 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 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 (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 [sic] 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 deployment 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 deployment data comprising first deployment data of a first deployment of the deployments and second deployment data of a second deployment of the deployments] […] (emphasis added).”); and
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 (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 (emphasis added).”; 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 [the similarity value indicating a similarity between the first deployment and the second deployment]. 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 deployment data and the second deployment 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:
using the similarity value to determine risks associated with deploying the second deployment;
generating deployment instructions based on the risks; 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.
However, Bagavathiappan discloses:
using the similarity value to determine risks associated with deploying the second deployment (paragraph [0034], “At block 338, process 330 determines a risk score for the feature release. The risk score is based on the effects that a similar historical release(s) had on the production environment. For example, based on how the historical changes impacted the stability of the production environment, process 330 calculates a risk score for the changes that releasing the feature into production will cause (emphasis added).”);
generating deployment instructions based on the risks (paragraph [0037]1, “At block 340, process 330 determines whether the risk score is above a threshold (e.g., risk threshold described at block 308 of FIG. 3A). If the risk score is below the threshold, at block 346 process 330 releases the feature in [sic] the production environment (emphasis added).”); and
[1Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Bagavathiappan discloses that if the risk score for the feature release is below the threshold, then the feature is released to the production environment. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that instructions to release the feature to the production environment are generated first and then executed in order to perform the release.]
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 (paragraph [0037]2, “At block 340, process 330 determines whether the risk score is above a threshold (e.g., risk threshold described at block 308 of FIG. 3A). If the risk score is below the threshold, at block 346 process 330 releases the feature in [sic] the production environment [cause the one or more data processing systems to deploy the second deployment]. If the risk score is above the threshold, at block 342, process 330 flags the feature for remediation. Flagging a feature release indicates that the feature release requires adjustments and/additional review prior to being released to the production environment [cause the one or more data processing systems to maintain the first deployment]. Flagging a feature can trigger readiness checks, proper load testing, and negative test cases to make sure any changes are reliable and stable, before releasing a product to customers. Process 330 can tag the current feature with a corresponding incident ticket (e.g., to identify a link associated between the change and incident) and roll back the change (emphasis added).”).
[2Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Bagavathiappan discloses that the feature is released to the production environment or adjusted prior to being released to the production environment depending on whether the risk score is above or below the threshold. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that instructions to release the feature to the production environment or adjusted prior to being released to the production environment are executed in order to perform the release or adjustment.]
As pointed out hereinabove, Mandal and Bagavathiappan 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 Bagavathiappan into the teaching of Mandal to include “using the similarity value to determine risks associated with deploying the second deployment; generating deployment instructions based on the risks; 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.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to indicate a reliability risk of implementing a feature into production based on a function reliability of a product (Bagavathiappan, paragraph [0019]).
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Mandal further discloses:
wherein the second deployment is different from the first deployment (paragraph [0035], “Given the complexity of large multi-layer service-oriented platforms, it can be difficult to understand potential causes and possible solutions or mitigation operations. This difficulty is exacerbated when one considers that code deployments among the multitude of interdependent services and microservices are in constant flux as updates occur and new or improved features are released.”).
Mandal does not explicitly disclose:
wherein […] the first deployment is a currently executing deployment on the one or more data processing systems, and the second deployment is a proposed deployment that has not yet been deployed.
However, Bagavathiappan discloses:
wherein […] the first deployment is a currently executing deployment on the one or more data processing systems, and the second deployment is a proposed deployment that has not yet been deployed (paragraph [0027], “At block 302, process 300 receives an input of a feature (e.g., deployable software package, software application, etc.) for release to a production environment. The input can include a service request number, software code, feature characteristics, or any information associated with the feature. For example, a service request can include details about the release, such as what the release changes in the production environment.”; paragraph [0029], “At block 306, process 300 determines the functionality of the feature in the production environment. The functionality of the feature can include the function the feature performs in the production environment, how the feature affects the production environment, the type of business function/operations, functional parameters, stability scores, operations, or how the feature affects the stability of the production environment.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Bagavathiappan 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 Bagavathiappan into the teaching of Mandal to include “wherein […] the first deployment is a currently executing deployment on the one or more data processing systems, and the second deployment is a proposed deployment that has not yet been deployed.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to indicate a reliability risk of implementing a feature into production based on a function reliability of a product (Bagavathiappan, paragraph [0019]).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated; and Mandal does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the second deployment comprises one or more changes to the computer-implemented services provided by the first deployment, and deploying the second deployment comprises changing the first deployment into the second deployment by effectuating the one or more changes to the computer-implemented services provided by the first deployment.
However, Bagavathiappan discloses:
wherein the second deployment comprises one or more changes to the computer-implemented services provided by the first deployment, and deploying the second deployment comprises changing the first deployment into the second deployment by effectuating the one or more changes to the computer-implemented services provided by the first deployment (paragraph [0027], “At block 302, process 300 receives an input of a feature (e.g., deployable software package, software application, etc.) for release to a production environment. The input can include a service request number, software code, feature characteristics, or any information associated with the feature. For example, a service request can include details about the release, such as what the release changes in the production environment.”; paragraph [0037], “At block 340, process 330 determines whether the risk score is above a threshold (e.g., risk threshold described at block 308 of FIG. 3A). If the risk score is below the threshold, at block 346 process 330 releases the feature in the production environment.”; paragraph [0040], “At block 364, process 360 identifies the assessment results of releasing the feature to the production environment.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Bagavathiappan 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 Bagavathiappan into the teaching of Mandal to include “wherein the second deployment comprises one or more changes to the computer-implemented services provided by the first deployment, and deploying the second deployment comprises changing the first deployment into the second deployment by effectuating the one or more changes to the computer-implemented services provided by the first deployment.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to indicate a reliability risk of implementing a feature into production based on a function reliability of a product (Bagavathiappan, paragraph [0019]).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 3 is incorporated; and Mandal does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the risks comprise a health-related risk, a stability-related risk, and a security-related risk to the first deployment should the first deployment be changed into the second deployment.
However, Bagavathiappan discloses:
wherein the risks comprise a health-related risk, a stability-related risk, and a security-related risk to the first deployment should the first deployment be changed into the second deployment (paragraph [0034], “The risk score can indicate the change risk for the feature if it is put into production based on the patterns similar to the failed historical feature releases. In some embodiments, the risk score can indicate the reliability risk of implementing the feature into production based on the function reliability of the product. For example, if an issue of the feature release will shut down usage of an API, the risk score is different than if the feature is changing visuals of a website.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Bagavathiappan 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 Bagavathiappan into the teaching of Mandal to include “wherein the risks comprise a health-related risk, a stability-related risk, and a security-related risk to the first deployment should the first deployment be changed into the second deployment.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to indicate a reliability risk of implementing a feature into production based on a function reliability of a product (Bagavathiappan, paragraph [0019]).
Claims 11-14 are non-transitory machine-readable medium claims corresponding to the method claims hereinabove (Claims 1-4, respectively). Therefore, Claims 11-14 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1-4, respectively.
Claims 16-19 are deployment manager claims corresponding to the method claims hereinabove (Claims 1-4, respectively). Therefore, Claims 16-19 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1-4, respectively.
Claims 5-10, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal in view of Bagavathiappan 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 changes to a client deployment that may lower quality of the services provided by the client deployment (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 5, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Mandal discloses “first deployment,” “second deployment,” and “using the first deployment data and the second deployment data to calculate the similarity value,” but the combination of Mandal and Bagavathiappan does not explicitly disclose:
wherein using the first deployment data and the second deployment data to calculate the similarity value comprises:
generating a first deployment distance matrix using the first deployment data and a second deployment distance matrix using the second deployment data,
wherein the similarity value is a distance score between the first deployment distance matrix and the second deployment 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 Bagavathiappan to include “wherein using the first deployment data and the second deployment data to calculate the similarity value comprises: generating a first deployment distance matrix using the first deployment data and a second deployment distance matrix using the second deployment data, wherein the similarity value is a distance score between the first deployment distance matrix and the second deployment 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 deployments to determine a deployment difference between two deployments (Sawal, paragraph [0045]).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 5 is incorporated; and Mandal discloses “first deployment” and “second deployment,” but the combination of Mandal and Bagavathiappan does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the distance score is a Wasserstein distance between the first deployment distance matrix and the second deployment 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 Bagavathiappan to include “wherein the distance score is a Wasserstein distance between the first deployment distance matrix and the second deployment 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 deployments to determine a deployment difference between two deployments (Sawal, paragraph [0045]).
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 6 is incorporated; and the combination of Mandal, Bagavathiappan, and Sawal discloses “the distance score,” but the combination of Mandal and Sawal does not explicitly disclose:
wherein using the similarity value to determine the risks comprises:
comparing the distance score to one or more predetermined risk threshold values,
wherein each of the one or more predetermined risk threshold values is associated with different levels of risks for deploying the second deployment.
However, Bagavathiappan discloses:
wherein using the similarity value to determine the risks comprises:
comparing the [risk] score to one or more predetermined risk threshold values (paragraph [0037], “At block 340, process 330 determines whether the risk score is above a threshold (e.g., risk threshold described at block 308 of FIG. 3A).”),
wherein each of the one or more predetermined risk threshold values is associated with different levels of risks for deploying the second deployment (paragraph [0030], “[…] the risk threshold is based on the history of similar changes that caused issues to the stability of the function of production environments. The risk threshold can be set based on risk categories, such as low risk, medium risk, and high risk. The risk categories are determined based on the functionality of the feature, business operations, product types, or any environmental characteristics that the feature is associated with.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Bagavathiappan 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 Bagavathiappan into the combined teachings of Mandal and Sawal to include “wherein using the similarity value to determine the risks comprises: comparing the distance score to one or more predetermined risk threshold values, wherein each of the one or more predetermined risk threshold values is associated with different levels of risks for deploying the second deployment.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to indicate a reliability risk of implementing a feature into production based on a function reliability of a product (Bagavathiappan, paragraph [0019]).
As per Claim 8, the rejection of Claim 5 is incorporated; and Mandal further discloses:
wherein the first deployment data comprises first components of the first deployment and first attributes of each of the first components of the first deployment, and the second deployment data comprises second components of the second deployment and second attributes of each of the second components of the second deployment (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 9, the rejection of Claim 8 is incorporated; and Mandal further discloses:
wherein the first attributes are associated with changes applied to each of the first components and the second attributes are associated with changes applied to each of the second components (paragraph [0074], “The term ‘code modification’ refers to a process of a data entity that describes a process of changing a code in a software environment. In some embodiments, a code modification is associated with a code modification data object that includes attributes of the code modification that are extracted as code modification features.”).
As per Claim 10, the rejection of Claim 9 is incorporated; and Mandal further discloses:
wherein the first attributes are further associated with metrics of the first components and the second attributes are further associated with the metrics of the second components (paragraph [0066], “The term ‘alerts’ refers to one or more monitored events or metrics, cautions, problems, errors, issues, flags, and/or incidents that are generated by an alert management system that is configured to monitor a software application framework. Alerts are embodied as any data construct and/or data object generated by an alert management system indicating the status and/or operating functionality of a component, module, service, microservice, feature, application, and/or device within a software application framework. Such operating functionality may include indicators regarding the performance of a component (e.g., whether the component and its functions are running at peak speed or slower than peak speed, if certain functions or capabilities are not running at peak performance or not running at all, etc.).”).
Claim 15 is a non-transitory machine-readable medium claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 5). Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 5.
Claim 20 is a deployment manager claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 5). Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 5.
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
Prosecution Insights