Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5,9-14,16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind.
Regarding claim 1, with the exception of the limitations ‘at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the IHS to’, the claim is directed to mental processes.
The limitations ‘identify a maintenance task that needs to be performed on a computing resource, wherein the maintenance task impacts an overall health score of the computing resource; classify the maintenance task according to a plurality of health contexts comprising an immediate health context, an upcoming context, and an efficiencies health context, wherein the upcoming health context indicating that the maintenance task does not need to be performed immediately yet should be performed at a future point in time, the immediate health context indicates that the maintenance task should be performed immediately, and the efficiencies health context indicating that the maintenance task should be performed to improve the performance of the computing resource; generate, using information associated with the maintenance task, health context scores for each of the immediate health context, the upcoming health context, and the efficiencies health context’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the IHS to’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘ display the health context scores simultaneously on a display for view by a user’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 2, the limitation ‘display each of the plurality of health context scores for view by a user’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 3, the limitation ‘display an overall health score of each of a plurality of computing resources’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)); and ‘display the health context scores when a mouse pointer is hovered over a field of a display representing the computing resource, wherein each of the health context scores comprises a slider icon that displays an overall health value for its respective health context’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 4, the limitation ‘display a historical graph of the plurality of health context scores for view by the user’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 5, the limitation ‘display each of the plurality of health context scores in a color-coded format’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 9, the limitation ‘wherein the instructions are performed by a systems manager that monitors and manages the operation of the computing resource’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 10, the claim is directed to mental processes.
The limitations ‘identifying a maintenance task that needs to be performed on a computing resource, wherein the maintenance task impacts an overall health score of the computing resource; classifying the maintenance task according to one of a plurality of health contexts comprising an immediate health context, an upcoming context, and an efficiencies health context, wherein the upcoming health context indicating that the maintenance task does not need to be performed immediately yet should be performed at a future point in time, the immediate health context indicates that the maintenance task should be performed immediately, and the efficiencies health context indicating that the maintenance task should be performed to improve the performance of the computing resource; generating, using information associated with the maintenance task, health context scores for each of the immediate health context, the upcoming health context, and the efficiencies health context’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘displaying the health context scores simultaneously on a display for view by a user’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘displaying the health context score for view by a user’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 11, the limitation ‘further comprising displaying each of the plurality of health context scores or view by a user’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 12, the limitation ‘further comprising: displaying an overall health score of each of a plurality of computing resources’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)); and ‘displaying the health context scores when a mouse pointer is hovered over a field of a display representing the computing resource, wherein each of the health context scores comprises a slider icon that displays an overall health value for its respective health context’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 13, the limitation ‘further comprising displaying a historical graph of the plurality of health context scores for view by the user’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 14, the limitation ‘further comprising displaying each of the plurality of health context scores in a color-coded format’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 16, with the exception of the limitations ‘A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform a method comprising’, the claim is directed to mental processes.
The limitations ‘identify a maintenance task that needs to be performed on a computing resource, wherein the maintenance task impacts an overall health score of the computing resource; classify the maintenance task according to a plurality of health contexts comprising an immediate health context, an upcoming context, and an efficiencies health context, wherein the upcoming health context indicating that the maintenance task does not need to be performed immediately yet should be performed at a future point in time, the immediate health context indicates that the maintenance task should be performed immediately, and the efficiencies health context indicating that the maintenance task should be performed to improve the performance of the computing resource; generate, using information associated with the maintenance task, health context scores for each of the immediate health context, the upcoming health context, and the efficiencies health context’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform a method comprising’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘display the health context scores simultaneously on a display for view by a user’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 17, the limitation ‘display each of the plurality of health context scores for view by a user’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 18, the limitation ‘display an overall health score of each of a plurality of computing resources’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)); and ‘display the health context scores when a mouse pointer is hovered over a field of a display representing the computing resource, wherein each of the health context scores comprises a slider icon that displays an overall health value for its respective health context’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 19, the limitation ‘display a historical graph of the plurality of health context scores for view by the user’ are directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 20, the limitation ‘display each of the plurality of health context scores in a color-coded format’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The Shlaev Aleksei et al. reference fails to disclose generate, using information associated with the maintenance task, health context score scores for the one health context each of the immediate health context, the upcoming health context, and the efficiencies health context; and display the health context score scores simultaneously on a display for view by a user. No additional prior art could be found to reject these limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered. Concerning arguments of the 101 rejection, the amended ‘classifying’ limitation is still written at present as a mental process. There is only added context as to how the classifying is done but it is still a mental process.
The prior art rejection has been withdrawn based on the addition of the added limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yolanda L Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-3653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30 am - 4 pm).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Yolanda L Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights