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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 6/9/26.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, to claim 20 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Charfi (US 2013/0268911) to claims 1-20 is moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-19 and 21-23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-12, 14-19 and 21-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Response to Amendment
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-12, 14-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charfi (US 2013/0268911) in view of Orr (US 8,873,428).
Per Claim 1:
Charfi teaches a memory to store machine-executable code; and a processor to execute the code (par. 0018), the processor configured to create a listing of a plurality of management functions, to receive from the managed system a subset of the management functions ([0003] Implementations of the present disclosure include computer-implemented methods for generating a lifecycle model. In some examples, methods include actions of receiving a lifecycle model, the lifecycle model including a representation of a lifecycle of an entity, the lifecycle including a plurality of states and transitions between states, storing the lifecycle model in computer-readable memory, the computer-readable memory, receiving one or more artifacts, the entity including the one or more artifacts, each artifact of the one or more artifacts being associated with at least one state of the plurality of states, storing the one or more artifacts in the computer-readable memory, receiving a generic lifecycle management toolset from the computer-readable memory, processing the lifecycle model and the one or more artifacts to configure the generic lifecycle management toolset and define an adapted lifecycle management toolset that is specific to the entity, the adapted lifecycle management toolset including a lifecycle management interface, storing the adapted lifecycle management toolset in the computer-readable memory, and providing the lifecycle management interface for display on a display device, the lifecycle management interface displaying representations of states of the plurality of states and a status of each state. [0014] In some implementations, actions include: receiving one or more update semantic definitions, each update semantic defining a subset of the one or more artifacts that are updated during a state transition and one or more user roles that perform updating of the subset of the one or more artifacts, wherein the generic lifecycle management toolset is configured further based on the one or more update semantics definitions. In some implementations, the update semantics definitions can be provided in a spreadsheet or in another form.), and to create an execution script based on the subset of the management functions ([0063] … In some examples, the testing artifacts category 522 can include artifacts related to the process of analyzing and ensuring the quality of the service. In some implementations, the testing artifacts category 522 can include documents describing a high-level test strategy, a detailed test plan, test cases, test scripts, and/or reports that document any errors found during the tests.). Charfi does not explicitly teach wherein the management functions identify updates that are available to the managed system, and wherein the execution script implements the updates associated with the subset of the management functions.
However, Orr teaches wherein the management functions identify updates that are available to the managed system, and wherein the execution script implements the updates associated with the subset of the management functions (“… (i) configure one of the one or more network devices of the subset of the plurality of network devices, (ii) update the software or firmware installed in one of the one or more network devices of the subset of the plurality of network devices, (iii) execute programming scripts by one of the one or more network devices of the subset of the plurality of network devices, and (iv) identify individual network devices in the group of network devices, which are to receive a respective subset of the information. …” in column 12, lines 25-34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Charfi to include wherein the management functions identify updates that are available to the managed system, and wherein the execution script implements the updates associated with the subset of the management functions using the teaching of Orr. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to access and configure a plurality of network devices in large network environment (Orr, column 1, lines 36-44).
Per Claim 2:
Charfi further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to publish the listing of the management functions to the managed system (par. 0003).
Per Claim 4:
Charfi further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to receive an update schedule from the managed system (par. 0069).
Per Claim 5:
Charfi further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine that a time associated with the update schedule has elapsed (par. 0069).
Per Claim 6:
Charfi further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to provide the execution script to the managed system in response to determining that the time associated with the update schedule has elapsed (par. 0063, 0069, 0071).
Per Claim 7:
Charfi further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to provide an indication to the managed system that the execution script is available in response to determining that the time associated with the update schedule has elapsed (par. 0063 and 0071).
Per Claim 8:
Charfi further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to receive a request for the execution script in response to providing the indication that the execution script is available, and to provide the execution script to the managed system in response to the request (par. 0063 and 0071).
Per Claim 9:
Charfi further teaches wherein creating the execution script is in response to determining that the time associated with the update schedule has elapsed (par. 0063 and 0071).
Per Claim 10:
Charfi further teaches wherein the execution script includes at least one of a hardware update, a firmware update, and a software update (par. 0014 and 0063).
Per Claims 11-12 & 14-19:
These are method versions of the claimed system discussed above (claims 1-2 and 4-9, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, these claims are also obvious.
Per Claim 21:
Orr further teaches wherein the execution script includes at least one of a hardware update, a firmware update, and a software update (column 12, lines 25-34).
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charfi (US 2013/0268911) in view of Orr (US 8,873,428), and further in view of Paterra (US 2024/0205680).
Per Claim 22:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, Charfi does not explicitly teach wherein the managed system includes one of a data center console and a cloud service console. However, Paterra teaches wherein the managed system includes one of a data center console and a cloud service console (par. 0145 and 0161).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Charfi to include wherein the managed system includes one of a data center console and a cloud service console using the teaching of Paterra. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide reliable communication systems (Paterra, par. 0001).
Per Claim 23:
This is a method version of the claimed system discussed above (claim 22, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yaros (US 10,282,177) teaches a method for selecting elements in a user interface from a plurality of application lifecycle management data.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 QAMRUN NAHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6:30pm.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on (571)272-3759. 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.
/QAMRUN NAHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights