DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected in the Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of provisional patent application US 63/524,296 filed 06/30/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term "sufficient size" and “better than human reasoning abilities” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "better than human reasoning abilities" and “sufficient size” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant may amend the claim to clarify the scope of the terminology.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regards to claims 2-10, they comprise a GPT model and further state what the model does. It is unclear if the model is a pre-existing model that is utilized as part the invention or a part of the inventive concept. LLM GPT models are all trained and with labeled data, create ‘human-like’ content and implement CoTs. It is unclear if the claims are a use claim.
Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term "human-like content" in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "human-like content” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant may amend the claim to clarify the scope of the terminology.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
There is insufficient antecedent basis in the following claim(s) for the limitation(s) enumerated below: “the SDK”
Claim 14, lacks antecedent basis for "the SDK".
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 depends upon itself. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 depends upon itself. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The above cited rejections are merely exemplary.
The Applicant(s) are respectfully requested to correct all similar errors.
Claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dome et al (US20200336388A1) hereinafter Dome.
Regarding claim 1. Dome teaches a method of an managing policies in a multi-cloud governance platform comprising: implementing Al-driven policy generation in the multi-cloud governance platform by (¶0006 see cloud infrastructure planning system, comprises a plan of demand assistant configured to generate a site solution to a forecasted capacity demand set, wherein the site solution is based on a capacity correlation derived from a historical site solution data set. The system also comprises a plan of record advisor configured to generate a plan of record for the site solution, wherein the plan of record is based on an infrastructure correlation derived from a historical infrastructure data set. The system also comprises a plan of execution analyzer configured to generate an execution design defining equipment meeting the plan of record, wherein the execution design is based on an equipment correlation derived from a historical equipment data set.):
providing at least one large language model (LLM) with sufficient size to have near or better than human reasoning abilities as an emergent property of the LLM (¶0060 see In addition to processor 802 and memory 804, device 800 may include an input/output system 806. Processor 802, memory 804, and input/output system 806 may be coupled together (coupling not shown in FIG. 8) to allow communications there between. Each portion of device 800 may comprise circuitry for performing functions associated with each respective portion [enough space is provided ie memory to run the machine learning models]);
providing a plurality of cloud-computing platform dynamically updated documentations (¶0041 see Methodology 200 begins at 202 and proceeds to 204 where an aspect involves receiving cloud infrastructure planning data. This can include cloud policies or rules (general or specific to the implementation, customer, provider, et cetera), growth predictions, market forecasts, as well as various historical data sets used by AI/ML agents to develop plans or solutions);
with the LLM, interpreting an existing policy of a cloud-computing platform as provided in the plurality of cloud-computing platform dynamically updated documentations (¶0042 see a plan of demand can be developed. This can include, but is not limited to, generating a site solution to a forecasted capacity demand set, wherein the site solution is based on the cloud infrastructure planning data and a capacity correlation derived from a historical site solution data set. In embodiments, an aspect at 206′ can include receiving POD inputs, such as the historical site solution data set, policies or rules, growth predictions, market forecasts, et cetera. The POD can be developed using an AI/ML agent, such as a POD assistant disclosed herein. In embodiments, the capacity correlation is determined by supervised machine learning);
with the by the LLM, generating executable check, for a compliance with a policy of the cloud-computing platform (¶0045 see This can include, but is not limited to, generating a resource prediction defining a service level based on the execution design, wherein the resource prediction is based on an availability correlation derived from a historical availability data set. The POE or other aspects utilized or generated in other aspects of methodology 200 can be provided for development of the POA. The POA can be developed using an AI/ML agent, such as a POA evaluator disclosed herein. The POA (or other information) generated can describe, e.g., available service and network capacity. In embodiments, the availability correlation is determined by supervised machine learning [unclear if the check is a machine check or a human review check]); and
with the LLM, creating and maintaining a plurality of resources or activities associated with the policy for at least one cloud instance of the cloud-computing platform (¶0049 see POD assistant decisions 312 can be an external database not directly coupled to interface 310 or other aspects (other than reinforcement ML 314) herein. Information in POD assistant decisions 312 can be ingested by reinforcement ML 314 to assist with tuning of POD assistant 308. Based on correlations, patterns, or other information related to the acceptance or implementation of work by the system, POD assistant 308 (and/or supervised ML 306) can be tuned or re-trained).
Conclusion
References are cited not only for their quoted language but for all that they teach.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atta Khan whose telephone number is 571-270-7364. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 09:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571) 272-7304. 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.
/ATTA KHAN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2449