CTNF 18/673,769 CTNF 84971 DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to application 18/673769, filed on 5/24/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. 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 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 1-6, 8-9, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Exemplar claim 19 recites: “examining application configuration data defining a configured software application and integration runtime engine profile data that specifies attributes of a plurality of integration runtime engines currently running within a computer environment; evaluating, in dependence on the examining, a suitability of respective ones of the plurality of the integration runtime engines for supporting running of the configured software application; returning an action decision in dependence on the evaluating, wherein the action decision specifies a selected integration runtime engine for supporting running of the configured software application” which can be reasonably carried out within the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, judgment, and opinion, and therefore is a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional hardware elements (e.g., in claim 19, “deploying the configured software application to the selected integration runtime engine” merely applies the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 1 and 20 are coextensive in scope with claim 19 and are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above regarding claim 19. Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-9 recite the same abstract idea of their parent claim, do not integrate it into a practical application, and do not recite “significantly more” than the judicial exception, and therefore are rejected under similar grounds as their parent claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-9 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by USPGPUB 2024/0311119, hereinafter “Sanguansin.” Regarding claim 1 , Sanguansin anticipates “A computer implemented method comprising: examining application configuration data defining a configured software application and integration runtime engine profile data that specifies attributes of a plurality of integration runtime engines currently running within a computer environment; (see, e.g., Sanguansin, fig. 8 sec. 802-804, para. 47) evaluating, in dependence on the examining, a suitability of respective ones of the plurality of the integration runtime engines for supporting running of the configured software application; (see, e.g., Sanguansin, fig. 8 sec. 806-808, para. 47-48) returning an action decision in dependence on the evaluating, wherein the action decision specifies a selected integration runtime engine for supporting running of the configured software application; (see, e.g., Sanguansin, fig. 8 sec. 808-810, para. 48) and deploying the configured software application to the selected integration runtime engine.” (see, e.g., Sanguansin, fig. 8 sec. 812, para. 48). Regarding claim 2 , Sanguansin anticipates “The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the application configuration data has been defined by an administrator user with use of a user interface.” (see, e.g., Sanguansin, fig. 3A-C & associated text). Regarding claim 3 , Sanguansin anticipates “The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the evaluating includes evaluating whether a service level agreement (SLA) requirement will be satisfied.” (see, e.g., Sanguansin, para. 25). Regarding claim 4 , Sanguansin anticipates “The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the evaluating includes predicting availability of the respective ones of the plurality of integration runtime engines with the configured software application deployed thereto.” (see, e.g., Sanguansin, para. 26, 47). Regarding claim 5 , Sanguansin anticipates “The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the evaluating includes predicting a deployment latency of the configured software application on deployment to respective ones of the plurality of integration runtime engines.” (see, e.g., Sanguansin, para. 25). Regarding claim 6 , Sanguansin anticipates “The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the evaluating includes applying a plurality of factors.” (see, e.g., Sanguansin, para. 25-26, 47-48). Regarding claim 7 , Sanguansin anticipates “The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of integration runtime engines currently running within a computer environment include a targeted integration runtime engine selected by an administrator user and at least one additional integration runtime engine, wherein the action decision specifies an additional integration runtime engine of the at least one additional integration runtime engine as the selected integration runtime engine.” (see, e.g., Sanguansin, fig. 4A-B & associated text). Regarding claim 8 , Sanguansin anticipates “The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the method includes spawning the selected integration runtime engine responsively to the action decision.” (see, e.g., Sanguansin, fig. 5A-C & associated text). Regarding claim 9 , Sanguansin anticipates “The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the method includes spawning the selected integration runtime engine responsively to the action decision and deploying the configured software application to the responsively spawned selected integration runtime engine.” (see, e.g., Sanguansin, fig. 5A-C & associated text, para. 37-39). Regarding claims 19 and 20 , the instant claims are equivalents of claim 1, differing only by statutory class. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis , to claim 19 and to claim 20 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 10-18 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 RYAN D. COYER whose telephone number is (571) 270-5306 and whose fax number is (571) 270-6306. The examiner normally can be reached via phone on Monday-Friday 12pm-10pm Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached on 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 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. /Ryan D. Coyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/673,769 Page 2 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/673,769 Page 3 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/673,769 Page 4 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/673,769 Page 5 Art Unit: 2191 Application/Control Number: 18/673,769 Page 6 Art Unit: 2191
