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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims the limitations making an identification, identifying a resource, identifying a change, identifying an action, as drafted, recites functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as cited above as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process.
Thus, these limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional limitations: processing system, medium, processor, memory. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f), and steps of initiating a performance do nothing more than add insignificant extra post-solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of processing system, medium, processor, memory, amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception.
The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 2, 12, 17 the limitations of selecting are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind; thus, additional mental process defined in the claims. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more. The limitation of using a framework is considered mere instructions to carry out the exception.
Regarding claim 3, 5, 6, 7, 13, 15, 18, 20 the limitations of selecting, assigning, closing, documenting, monitoring, marking, modifying, are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind; thus, additional mental process defined in the claims. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more.
Regarding claim 4, 8, 9, 10, 14, 19 the limitations of sending information, notifying, obtaining, and registering, are nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts identified the generic function of gathering/storing data, the results of the judicial exception, is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - i. 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).
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, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuboi (Pub. No. US 2020/0387362) in view of Alamir (Pub. No. US 2022/0244938).
Claim 1, 11, 16, Tsuboi teaches “a method for managing resources used by data processing systems to provide computer- implemented services, the method comprising: making an identification that an update event has occurred for a common resource used by at least a first portion of the data processing systems ([0040] FIG. 7 is a sequence diagram for illustrating processing for when the image forming apparatus 101 and the server 102 according to the first embodiment updates applications 601 installed on the image forming apparatus 101 upon an instruction by a user.); and based on the identification: identifying a dependent resource that is registered as being dependent on the common resource, the dependent resource being used by at least a second portion of the data processing systems ([0055] Here, for example, if selection is made to update the app A to version 2.0 on the screen of FIG. 10, it is displayed that it in order to do so, it will be necessary to update an app B to version 2.0 or to version 3.0. In such a case, the radio buttons for versions 1.1 and 1.2 of the app B cease to be selectable, and the radio buttons of version 2.0 and version 3.0 of the app B can be selected, and the radio button for the latest version 3.0 is selected. [0057] Thereby, the download module 402 of the image forming apparatus 101, in step S712, makes an instruction to download the applications to the server 102, and starts the downloading of the applications from the delivery module 503 of the server 102. After that, the update module 403 of the image forming apparatus 101, in step S713, uses the downloaded applications to update the selected applications and the applications in the dependency relationship with the selected applications.), identifying a change made to the common resource, identifying an action set that, when performed, facilitates operation of the dependent resource with the common resource after the change, and initiating performance of the action set to facilitate provisioning of the computer-implemented services by the data processing systems ([0067] Also, FIG. 12 depicts a view illustrating an example of a case where a plurality of versions are hits in step S811. Ver 2.0 of app A references Ver 2.0 or Ver 3.0 of app B. However, since only Ver 1.0 of app B has been installed, it is necessary to update app B to Ver 2.0 or Ver 3.0 in order to update to Ver 2.0 of app A. Consequently, in such a case, Ver 1.1 and Ver 1.2 of app B are grayed out and made to be impossible to select, the latest version Ver 3.0 is put in the selected state. [0068] Then, the processing proceeds to step S812, and the CPU 201 functions as the update module 403, and changes a list defining the update order so as to update the application that is referenced, specifically application (D), before application (B) which the user selected, and then the processing ends.)”.
However, Tsuboi may not explicitly state that the incompatibility will cause issues.
Alamir teaches as evidence a dependent component may break if a parent component is updated such that teaches “the dependent resource being unable to operate with the common resource in a same manner as prior to the change due to the change ([0112] One is the entire network graph of dependencies far the project, and the second is the impacted scripts that have a dependency on the specified library and may fail as a result of an upgrade. [0094] 6) Release notes are obtained fix the library. Every updated version of code has release notes that show the latest changes from the previous version, also referred to herein as the “delta change.” As only the delta change is provided, all release notes between the two versions provided by the user must be examined. From these, the deprecated functions may be extracted. [0095] 7) A search for the deprecated functions within the codebase is performed. If none of the deprecated functions exist in the code, it is safe to update the libraries. [0096] 8) If the deprecated functions exist in the code, documentation on the old version and the new version is obtained in order to extinct the function signatures. [0097] 9) The documentation is parsed in order to extract the function's input and output arguments (i.e., function signature). [0098] 10) A check as to whether the function signatures match or whether they have changed is performed. If the input and output arguments of a function have not changed, then the code may safely be updated, thus reinitiating the unit tests. [0099] 11) The unit tests for the updated functions should now pass.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Alamir with the teachings of Tsuboi to provide a system that teaches consequences of updating applications. The motivation for applying Alamir teaching with Tsuboi teaching is to provide a system that allows for dependency-based updates. Tsuboi, Alamir are analogous art directed towards updating of applications. Together Tsuboi, Alamir teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Alamir with the teachings of Tsuboi by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 2, 12, 17, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Tsuboi teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein the action set comprises: selecting an automated set of actions based on the change, the automated set of actions being performed without user intervention to update the operation of the dependent resource to reduce impacts on the operation of the dependent resource due to the change; and using an automation framework to perform the automated set of actions ([0057] Thereby, the download module 402 of the image forming apparatus 101, in step S712, makes an instruction to download the applications to the server 102, and starts the downloading of the applications from the delivery module 503 of the server 102. After that, the update module 403 of the image forming apparatus 101, in step S713, uses the downloaded applications to update the selected applications and the applications in the dependency relationship with the selected applications. Also, in step S714, the updated applications are started. After that, in step S715, the UI control module 404 of the image forming apparatus 101 displays a completion screen (FIG. 13) on the display unit 206, and ends the processing of this example.)”.
Claim 4, 14, 19, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Alamir teaches “the method of claim 3, wherein assigning the tasks for performance comprises: sending information regarding at least one of the tasks to a stakeholder that uses the dependent resource to effectuate a goal ([0075] In some instances, the code updates may be performed automatically. In these cases, at step S412, the codebase maintenance and updates module 302 automatically executes the updates. When there is at least one update that requires human intervention, at step S414, the codebase maintenance and updates module 302 generates a message indicating a result of the determination of impacted code modules and that human intervention is required, and transmits this message to a user.)”.
Rationale to claim 1 is applied here.
Claim 7, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Alamir teaches “the method of claim 4, wherein a task of the task requires that the stakeholder initiate modification of the operation the dependent resource to account for at least a portion of the change ([0075] In some instances, the code updates may be performed automatically. In these cases, at step S412, the codebase maintenance and updates module 302 automatically executes the updates. When there is at least one update that requires human intervention, at step S414, the codebase maintenance and updates module 302 generates a message indicating a result of the determination of impacted code modules and that human intervention is required, and transmits this message to a user.)”.
Rationale to claim 1 is applied here.
Claim 8, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Tsuboi teaches “the method of claim 3, wherein the action set further comprises: notifying all stakeholders of the update event to initiate use of an interface, by the stakeholders, through which progress information regarding completion of the distributed workflow is available ([0057] Thereby, the download module 402 of the image forming apparatus 101, in step S712, makes an instruction to download the applications to the server 102, and starts the downloading of the applications from the delivery module 503 of the server 102. After that, the update module 403 of the image forming apparatus 101, in step S713, uses the downloaded applications to update the selected applications and the applications in the dependency relationship with the selected applications. Also, in step S714, the updated applications are started. After that, in step S715, the UI control module 404 of the image forming apparatus 101 displays a completion screen (FIG. 13) on the display unit 206, and ends the processing of this example.)”.
Claim/s 3, 5, 6, 13, 15, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuboi, Alamir in view of Schwartz (Pub. No. 2013/0074063).
Claim 3, 13, 18, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Schwartz teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein the action set comprises: selecting, based on the change, a distributed workflow to manage the change to the common resource, the distributed workflow comprising tasks; assigning the tasks for performance; closing the tasks as confirmation of completion of each of the tasks is obtained; and documenting the tasks and completion of each of the tasks ([0043] A task may be dependent on one or more other tasks and/or other tasks may be dependent on the task. As such, an indicator that indicates dependency between data within tasks may be displayed for a task. By selecting the dependency indicator, the dependencies may be reviewed by the user. FIG. 8 illustrates an embodiment of an interface 800 displaying dependencies of a task. If a user selects dependency indicator 810, dependency interface 820 may be displayed. Dependency interface 820 may display various tasks that are dependent on the task linked with dependency indicator 810. In some embodiments, dependency interface 820 may, alternatively or additionally, indicate tasks that depend from the task linked with dependency indicator 810. Dependency interface 820 may indicate the name of the dependency-related tasks, the status of such tasks, and/or the owner of such tasks. Other information about the dependency-related tasks may also be presented.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Schwartz with the teachings of Tsuboi, Alamir to provide a system that teaches management of tasks. The motivation for applying Schwartz teaching with Tsuboi, Alamir teaching is to provide a system that allows for tracking of tasks for the purposes of design choice. Tsuboi, Alamir, Schwartz are analogous art directed towards application management. Together Tsuboi, Alamir, Schwartz teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Schwartz with the teachings of Tsuboi, Alamir by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 5, 15, 20, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Schwartz teaches “the method of claim 4, wherein closing the tasks comprises: monitoring communications from the stakeholder to identify a completion of the at least one of the tasks; and marking the at least one of the tasks as completed based on the monitoring of the communications ([0037] The user may be permitted to select tasks for completion or modification in an order of the user's choosing. For example, the user may be permitted to address task 530 prior to the preceding task or any of the following tasks. Following completion of a task, the user may return to task list 510 to complete or modify other tasks. In some embodiments, an order of completion may be required. Column 550 may list dependencies of tasks. A task having a dependency may indicate that one or more pieces of task data within the task are dependent on, or affect task data, associated with another task. As such, setting or modifying the dependent task data associated with the task may affect another task and/or cause a conflict with another task. Column 560 may indicate when a task was last updated (e.g., edited by a user). [0070] If the task is complete, the status may be set to complete. Statuses may be set manually or automatically.)”.
Rationale to claim 3 is applied here.
Claim 6, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Schwartz teaches “the method of claim 4, wherein a task of the task requires that the stakeholder modify operation of a data processing system of the second portion of the data processing systems to account for at least a portion of the change ([0075] The computer system 1600 might also include a communications subsystem 1630, which can include without limitation a modem, a network card (wireless or wired), an infrared communication device, a wireless communication device and/or chipset (such as a Bluetooth.TM. device, an 802.11 device, a WiFi device, a WiMax device, cellular communication facilities, etc.), and/or the like. The communications subsystem 1630 may permit data to be exchanged with a network (such as the network described below, to name one example), other computer systems, and/or any other devices described herein. In many embodiments, the computer system 1600 will further comprise a working memory 1635, which can include a RAM or ROM device, as described above.)”.
Rationale to claim 3 is applied here.
Claim/s 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuboi, Alamir in view of Costa (Pub. No. US 2023/0127029).
Claim 9, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Costa teaches “the method of claim 1, further comprising: prior to making the identification: obtaining a first registration request for the common resource, the first registration request indicating creation of the common resource; and registering the common resource based on the first registration request ([0004] Some examples extend application lifecycle management processes to user-created application platform components, such as in a low-code application platform (LCAP). Within an application platform, a first component and a second component are generated. The first component is customized at least by defining a layering of the first component, and indicating whether the first component is protected from downstream modification. The second component is customized in accordance with customizing the first component, and is further customized to define a dependency of the second component on the first component. First metadata for the first component representing the customizations made to the first component is stored. Second metadata for the second component representing the customizations made to the second component is stored. The first component and the second component are deployed with the first metadata and the second)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Costa with the teachings of Tsuboi, Alamir to provide a system that teaches registration of applications. The motivation for applying Costa teaching with Tsuboi, Alamir teaching is to provide a system that allows for tracking of applications for the purposes of design choice. Tsuboi, Alamir, Costa are analogous art directed towards application management. Together Tsuboi, Alamir, Costa teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Costa with the teachings of Tsuboi, Alamir by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 10, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Costa teaches “the method of claim 9, further comprising: prior to making the identification and after obtaining the first registration request: obtaining a second registration request for the dependent resource, the second registration request indicating a manner in which the dependent resource is dependent upon the common resource; and registering the dependent resource with respect to the common resource based on the second registration request ([0004] Some examples extend application lifecycle management processes to user-created application platform components, such as in a low-code application platform (LCAP). Within an application platform, a first component and a second component are generated. The first component is customized at least by defining a layering of the first component, and indicating whether the first component is protected from downstream modification. The second component is customized in accordance with customizing the first component, and is further customized to define a dependency of the second component on the first component. First metadata for the first component representing the customizations made to the first component is stored. Second metadata for the second component representing the customizations made to the second component is stored. The first component and the second component are deployed with the first metadata and the second)”.
Rationale to claim 9 is applied here.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYNUEL S AQUINO whose telephone number is (571)272-7478. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 at 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.
/WYNUEL S AQUINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights