DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Examiner’s Remarks
In response to the Election/Restriction sent out on 05/05/2026, Applicant has elected Group I, Claims 1-40.
Claims 1-40 are pending.
Claims 41-70 are withdrawn.
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 1-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 26, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process. For example limitations:
scanning the one or more data sources to obtain scanned data;
preprocessing the scanned data, including anonymizing the scanned data;
sharing the preprocessed data with the data privacy management system;
see MPEP 2106.04.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim only includes well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions in addition to the cited abstract idea and does not recite an inventive concept. see MPEP 2106.05(d)
For example the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites two additional elements – a network and data discovery agent. The network and data discovery agent are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
MPEP section 2106.05 I is titled THE SEARCH FOR AN INVENTIVE CONCEPT; here, the MPEP makes it clear that patentability does not rest on novelty or non-obviousness alone, but that there must be an inventive concept.
Section A provides six examples of what may constitute an inventive concept; applicants claim does not include limitations corresponding to any of the items i-vi.
Section A also provides 4 examples of what may not constitute an inventive concept; similarly, applicant’s claim does not include limitations that amount to enough to qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the limitations in addition to the abstract ideas amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, a general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 2-10, 12-25 and 27-40, the claims recite limitations that are considered insignificant extra-solution activities that fail to integrate the concept into a practical application.
Appropriate correction(s) is/are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 11-12, 16, 18, 25-27, 31, 33 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2022/0253558), hereinafter Jones, in view of KRISHNASWAMI et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2021/0209251), hereinafter Krishn.
Regarding claim 1, Jones teaches
establishing or using one or more connections with one or more data sources storing private data of the customer organization (Jones, Paragraph [0023], see “Discovering particular target data (e.g., personal data) across a plurality of data sources…”) (Jones, FIG. 1, see “Source Computing System 130”, which establishes or uses one or more connections with one or more data sources storing private data (personal data) of a customer organization);
scanning the one or more data sources to obtain scanned data from the private data (Jones, Paragraph [0028], see “…a scan module can be installed within a computing system so that the scan module can scan a data source found within the computing system to identify data elements associated with the data source that are used in handling target data…”) (Jones, Paragraph [0039], see “…the scan module 136 collects one or more data samples for each of the identified data elements…a data element may be used in storing a data subject’s last name…a data sample for this data element may be “Smith,” “Anderson,” “Williams,” and/or the like…”, where the data sources are scanned to obtain scanned data from the private data);
preprocessing the scanned data, including anonymizing the scanned data, to obtain preprocessed data for use by one or more classification operations (Jones, Paragraph [0077], see “…the anonymizer module may determine whether the data samples for the data element need to be anonymized based on the label(s) assigned to the data element…”) (Jones, FIG. 3, which depicts preprocessing the scanned data, including anonymizing the scanned data (e.g., 315, 320), to obtain preprocessed data for use by one or more classification operations); and
sharing the preprocessed data with the data privacy management system (Jones, Paragraph [0025], see “…software tools used in data mapping are more effective when their outputs regarding a mapping of target data can be validated through a review of at least some of that target data…a source computing device may transfer target data to a review computing system to enable personnel of entities to review real occurrences of personal data handled by the various computing systems in verifying the mapping of the personal data within the systems…”) (Jones, FIG. 3, see “330”, which sends/shares the preprocessed data with a management system).
Jones does not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Krishn: A process implementing a data discovery agent in a network associated with a customer organization of a data privacy management system (Krishn, Paragraph [0057], see “…The sensitive data discovery engine 102 configures unique data classifications of direct customer-identifying data…”) (Krishn, Paragraph [0085], see “…the integrated platform 101 implements an agent-based discovery of the sensitive data in each of the data sources…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Jones, by implementing techniques of implementing a data discovery agent in a network associated with an organization, disclosed of Krishn.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques of data discovery for data privacy management, comprising of implementing a data discovery agent in a network associated with an organization. This allows for better security management by utilizing a data discovery agent to provide critical visibility into where sensitive information lives, whilst helping the organizations secure their data. Krishn is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of implementing a data discovery agent in a network associated with an organization (Krishn, Paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 12, Jones as modified by Krishn teaches The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the program code is configured to be deployed and executed as one or more tasks in a network associated with the customer organization (Jones, Paragraph [0031], see “…target data may not necessarily be associated with an individual but may be associated with other entities such as a business, organization, government, association, and/or the like”) (Jones, Paragraph [0068], see “…the classification module 135 is primarily tasked with generating a label for each of the data elements identified for a data source that is involved in handling target data to identify a type of target data associated with the data element…”) (Jones, Paragraph [0076], see “…the anonymizer module 125 is tasked to identify those data elements provided in the labeled source dataset that need to have their corresponding data samples anonymized and anonymizing the data samples accordingly”, which is analogous as program code being deployed/executed as one or more tasks in a network associated with an organization).
Regarding claim 16, Jones as modified by Krishn teaches The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein scanning the one or more data sources to obtain the scanned data from the private data includes:
sampling a designated number of database records stored in one or more databases (Jones, Paragraph [0007], see “…a first plurality of data samples gathered for the first data element from the data source…a second plurality of data samples gathered for the second data element from the data source…”) (Jones, Paragraph [0039], see “…the scan module 136 collects one or more data samples for each of the identified data elements…a data element may be used in storing a data subject’s last name…a data sample for this data element may be “Smith,” “Anderson,” “Williams,” and/or the like…”) (Jones, Paragraph [0077], see “…the anonymizer module may determine whether the data samples for the data element need to be anonymized based on the label(s) assigned to the data element…”).
Regarding claim 18, Jones as modified by Krishn teaches The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the scanned data includes personal data of individuals associated with the customer organization, the personal data including one or more of: phone numbers, email addresses, usernames, social security numbers, or bank account numbers (Jones, Paragraph [0005], see “…the label comprises data identifying the type of the target data as at least one of a first name, a last name, a telephone number, a social security number, a credit card number, an account number, or an email address…”).
Regarding claim 25, Jones as modified by Krishn teaches The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the preprocessed data includes one or more of: metadata, classification features, or anonymized data (Jones, Paragraph [0077], see “…the anonymizer module may determine whether the data samples for the data element need to be anonymized based on the label(s) assigned to the data element…”) (Jones, FIG. 3, which depicts preprocessing the scanned data, including anonymizing the scanned data (e.g., 315, 320), to obtain preprocessed data (comprising of anonymized data)).
Regarding claim 27, Jones does not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Krish: The system of claim 26, wherein a data discovery agent is configured to be deployed and executed as one or more tasks in a network associated with the customer organization (Krishn, Paragraph [0084], see “…the agents 106 deployed by the integrated platform 101 at each of the similar and variant data sources, receive and process the templates 202 with the data security rules from the sensitive data discovery engine 102 for performing downstream anonymization such as masking, encryption, tokenization, etc…”, which is analogous to a data discovery agent (e.g., agents 106) are configured to be deployed as one or more tasks in a network associated with an organization) (Krishn, Paragraph [0085], see “…the integrated platform 101 implements an agent-based discovery of the sensitive data in each of the data sources…”) (Krishn, Paragraph [0101], which discloses that the sensitive data comprises first name, last name, social security numbers, etc. of inactive employees from an organization).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Jones, by implementing techniques of a data discovery agent being deployed and executed as one or more tasks in a network associated with a customer organization, disclosed of Krishn.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques of data discovery for data privacy management, comprising of a data discovery agent being deployed and executed as one or more tasks in a network associated with a customer organization. This allows for better security management by utilizing a data discovery agent to provide critical visibility into where sensitive information lives, whilst helping the organizations secure their data. Krishn is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of a data discovery agent being deployed and executed as one or more tasks in a network associated with a customer organization (Krishn, Paragraphs [0084 - 0085]).
Regarding claims 11 and 26, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1.
Regarding claim 31, the claim is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 16.
Regarding claim 33, the claim is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 18.
Regarding claim 40, the claim is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 25.
Claims 2, 14 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones, in view of Krishn, in further view of RESCH (U.S. PGPub. 2011/0107112), hereinafter Resch, in further view of Ylonen (U.S. PGPub. 2017/0012953).
Regarding claim 2, Jones as modified by Krishn do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Resch: The process of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining a reference to a location of a secrets vault of the customer organization (Resch, Paragraph [0108], see “The DS managing unit determines the DSN memory and/or user vault location for the associated encrypted key based on one or more of a user ID, the requester ID, a key use indicator, a lookup, a command, a predetermination, and/or an identifier associated with the key. The DS managing unit retrieves the encrypted key based on the location determination”, which is analogous to obtaining a reference to a location of a secrets vault of the organization)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Jones, and techniques disclosed of Krishn, by implementing techniques of obtaining a reference to a location of a secrets vault of an organization, disclosed of Resch.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques of data discovery for data privacy management, comprising of obtaining a reference to a location of a secrets vault of an organization. This allows for better security management by referencing a location of a secrets vault to allow the system to manage sensitive data dynamically. Resch is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of obtaining a reference to a location of a secrets vault of an organization (Resch, Paragraph [0108]).
Jones as modified by Krishn and further modified by Resch do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Ylonen: accessing, from the secrets vault, one or more keys associated with the data privacy management system, the one or more keys configured to be processed to authenticate and authorize the data discovery agent (Ylonen, Paragraph [0602], see “A privileged access manager provides controlled and/or audited access to a privileged account…and may implement a password vault and hide actual passwords or other authentication credentials (e.g., private keys) used for accessing privileged accounts. It may perform session logging or recording for access to privileged accounts”, which is analogous to accessing, from a secrets vault, one or more keys (e.g., private keys) associated with a management system, the one or more keys (e.g., private keys) configured to be processed to authenticate and authorize the data discovery agent (e.g., privileged account)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Jones, techniques disclosed of Krishn, and techniques disclosed of Resch, by implementing techniques of accessing one or more keys from the secrets vault, the one or more keys being used to authenticate/authorize the data discovery agent, disclosed of Ylonen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques of data discovery for data privacy management, comprising of accessing one or more keys from the secrets vault, the one or more keys being used to authenticate/authorize the data discovery agent. This allows for better security management by making sure an agent securely verifies its identity, whilst logging all access from the secrets vault for compliance. Ylonen is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of accessing one or more keys from the secrets vault, the one or more keys being used to authenticate/authorize the data discovery agent (Ylonen, Paragraph [0602]).
Regarding claims 14 and 29, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 2.
Claims 3, 15 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones, in view of Krishn, in further view of WADHWA et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2024/0176855), hereinafter Wadhwa.
Regarding claim 3, Jones as modified by Krishn do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Wadhwa: The process of claim 1, wherein establishing or using the one or more connections with the one or more data sources includes:
processing one or more credentials stored in a secrets vault of the customer organization (Wadhwa, Paragraph [0072], see “…In response to a determination that the new application needs to be deployed, restarted, reconfigured, or updated, a request to retrieve the client application secret credentials from the encrypted data vault may be generated…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Jones, and techniques disclosed of Krishn, by implementing techniques of processing one or more credentials stored in a secrets vault of an organization, disclosed of Wadhwa.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques of data discovery for data privacy management, comprising of processing one or more credentials stored in a secrets vault of an organization. This allows for better security management by centralizing credential management and enhancing security through dynamic access. Wadhwa is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of processing one or more credentials stored in a secrets vault of an organization (Wadhwa, Paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claims 15 and 30, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 3.
Claims 4, 17 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones, in view of Krishn, in further view of LEIBUNDGUTH et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2025/0342141), hereinafter Leibundguth.
Regarding claim 4, Jones as modified by Krishn do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Leibundguth: The process of claim 1, wherein scanning the one or more data sources to obtain the scanned data from the private data includes:
retrieving one or more schemas and related metadata identifying one or more of: one or more databases, one or more tables, one or more columns, one or more data types, or one or more record counts (Leibundguth, Claim 16, see “…retrieving a schema comprising a set of metadata fields and data types associated with a record type…”, which is analogous to retrieving one or more schemas and related metadata identifying one or more data types).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Jones, and techniques disclosed of Krishn, by implementing techniques of retrieving a schema and related metadata identifying one or more data types, disclosed of Leibundguth.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques of data discovery for data privacy management, comprising of retrieving a schema and related metadata identifying one or more data types. This allows for better organization of the sensitive data by improving data accuracy and integration of the data by its type. Leibundguth is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of retrieving a schema and related metadata identifying one or more data types (Leibundguth, Claim 16).
Regarding claims 17 and 32, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 4.
Claims 5-6, 19-20 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones, in view of Krishn, in further view of AIELLO et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2021/0019446), hereinafter Aiello.
Regarding claim 5, Jones as modified by Krishn do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Aiello: The process of claim 1, wherein anonymizing the scanned data includes:
encoding the scanned data to obtain encoded data (Aiello, Paragraph [0016], see “…encoding, by the processing unit from the anonymization repository, comprising the generation of anonymized data from previously identified data to be anonymized…”, which is analogous to encoding the scanned data to obtain encoded data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Jones, and techniques disclosed of Krishn, by implementing techniques of encoding scanned data to obtain encoded data, disclosed of Aiello.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques of data discovery for data privacy management, comprising of encoding scanned data to obtain encoded data. This allows for better security management by enhancing privacy protection and preserving data utility of the sensitive data. Aiello is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of encoding scanned data to obtain encoded data (Aiello, Paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 6, Jones as modified by Krishn do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Aiello: The process of claim 5, wherein encoding the scanned data includes:
substituting a first character for alphabetic characters, and
substituting a second character different from the first character for numeric characters (Aiello, Paragraph [0060], see “The expression “data transformation”, within the meaning of the invention, refers to any technique aiming to anonymize a dataset…data encoding can correspond to a pseudonymization technique”, where “pseudonymization technique” is analogous to substituting a first character for alphabetic characters and substituting a second character for numeric characters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Jones, and techniques disclosed of Krishn, by implementing techniques of substituting a first character and a second character with letters and numbers, disclosed of Aiello.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques of data discovery for data privacy management, comprising of substituting a first character and a second character with random letters and numbers. This allows for better security management by substituting direct personal identifiers with different letters and numbers to protect sensitive data while keeping it useful. Aiello is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of substituting a first character and a second character with letters and numbers (Aiello, Paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claims 19 and 34, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 5.
Regarding claims 20 and 35, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 6.
Claims 10, 24 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones, in view of Krishn, in further view of Baarsma et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2023/0376628), hereinafter Baarsma.
Regarding claim 10, Jones as modified by Krishn do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Baarsma: The process of claim 1, wherein sharing the preprocessed data with the data privacy management system includes:
posting the preprocessed data through hypertext transfer protocol secure (HTTPS) to an application programming interface (API) provided by the data privacy management system, the API being authenticable using a token provided by the data privacy management system (Baarsma, Paragraph [0033], see “…A simple way to authenticate is to use the organization API key or vendor API key…a vendor API key may be used, for example, for storing and retrieving subject data, while an organization API key may be used for managing organization resources”, where “API key” is analogous to a token for authenticating an API and client, which is provided by the system) (Baarsma, Paragraph [0044], see “…the process begins with the receipt of a request from a vendor 48 at the vendor API gateway 50, which invokes the authorizer function…POST https://api.dev.preferencelink.com/data-api/subjects apiKey: e328fd00-5553-4715…”, which is analogous to posting preprocessed data through HTTPS to an API provided by the management system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Jones, and techniques disclosed of Krishn, by implementing techniques of posting data through HTTPS to an API, the API being authenticable using a token, disclosed of Baarsma.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques of data discovery for data privacy management, comprising of posting data through HTTPS to an API, the API being authenticable using a token. This allows for better security management by posting data through HTTPS, which encrypts information in transit, preventing attackers from reading/changing sensitive data. Baarsma is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of posting data through HTTPS to an API, the API being authenticable using a token (Baarsma, Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claims 24 and 39, the claims are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 10.
Claims 13 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones, in view of Krishn, in further view of WU et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2025/0285206), hereinafter Wu.
Regarding claim 13, Jones as modified by Krishn do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Wu: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the one or more tasks is configured to be scheduled for execution using a designated containerization platform (Wu, Paragraph [0009], see “…constructing a container system on a GPU resource pool, and scheduling containerized tasks from different platforms to designated GPU nodes in the resource pool, so as to achieve GPU resource sharing among heterogeneous platforms and improve overall usage of GPU resources across platforms…”, which is analogous to the one or more tasks being configured to be scheduled for executing using a designated containerization platform (e.g., designated GPU nodes)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Jones, and techniques disclosed of Krishn, by implementing techniques of one or more tasks being configured to be schedule for execution using a designated containerization platform, disclosed of Wu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques of data discovery for data privacy management, comprising of one or more tasks being configured to be schedule for execution using a designated containerization platform. This allows for better efficiency and organization by scheduling execution of one or more tasks using a designated containerization platform, which ultimately ensures consistent and isolated environments, whilst improving overall usage of resources across different tasks. Wu is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of one or more tasks being configured to be schedule for execution using a designated containerization platform (Wu, Paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 28, the claim is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, 21-23 and 36-38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI whose telephone number is (571)272-8747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:00am – 7:00pm.
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, Philip Chea can be reached on (571) 272-3951. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights