CTNF 18/671,736 CTNF 75190 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This is in response to Application filed 05/22/24. Claims 1 – 20 has been examined and is pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 non-statutory subject matter. Step 1. The independent claim 1 and 11 does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a system for processing code. Claims 1, 11 and 18, recites the steps of: (a) collecting node-level feature data from the plurality of nodes to generate a training dataset; training a prediction model to calculate a first constituent risk score quantifying deployment risk associated with the software deployment and the plurality of nodes based on the training dataset; identifying a rate of virtual machine interruptions of the plurality of nodes associated with deployment issues; (b) calculating, by the prediction model, a second constituent risk score quantifying annual interruption rate impact risk associated with the plurality of nodes and the software deployment based on the rate of virtual machine interruptions of the plurality of nodes associated with deployment issues; (c) calculating a third constituent risk score quantifying likelihood of malfunction of the software deployment for the plurality of nodes based on the node-level feature data; (d) determining a risk of a software deployment failure based on the first constituent risk score, the second constituent risk score, and the third constituent risk score; (e) calculating a first constituent impact score quantifying virtual machine density based on a number of virtual machines at each of the plurality of nodes; calculating a second constituent impact score quantifying presence of an important entity operating at least one virtual machine at each of the plurality of nodes; (f) classifying an importance of each of the one or more virtual machines of each of the plurality of nodes based on a volume of computing resources allocated to each of the virtual machines; (g) calculating a third constituent impact score based on the classification of the importance of each of the virtual machines; (h) determining an impact of the software deployment failure based on the first constituent impact score, the second constituent impact score, and the third constituent impact score; (i) calculating a composite risk score based on the risk of the software deployment failure and the impact of the software deployment failure; and (j) generating a deployment recommendation for the software deployment based on the composite risk score. Regarding Step 2A Prong 1: Steps (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i) and (J) are mental processes (i.e., calculating, determining, classifying and generating processes which can be performed in the human mind or by a human by using pen and paper. Regarding Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 1 recites additional elements, i.e., collecting data to generate a data set, training a prediction model quantifying a risk score, calculating by the prediction model and calculating a risk score, and determining a risk score software score as well as calculating, classifying and determining the impact of the software deployment failure and then generating a deployment recommendation. However, they are recited at a high level of generality and can be done abstractly. There’s never physical transformation by performing the physical act of deployment or executing the steps. Thus, the claims as a whole do not integrate the exception into a practical application. While claim 18 mentions a system and a CRM (computer readable medium) there still isn’t any physical transformation withing process that interlinks the software and hardware to perform the action. Such as Running the steps or producing a tangible output. Regarding Step 2B: The identified additional elements do not amount significantly more than the judicial exception. Correspondence Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chuck Kendall whose telephone number is 571-272-3698. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00 am - 6:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung Sough can be reached on 571-272-6799. 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). /CHUCK O KENDALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/671,736 Page 2 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/671,736 Page 3 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/671,736 Page 4 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/671,736 Page 5 Art Unit: 2192
Prosecution Insights