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 .
This action is responding to the application papers filed on 6/24/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
The information disclosure statement filed on 9/30/2024 has been considered.
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. Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Per claim 1, the claim is directed to an idea of itself, mental processes that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The steps of determining that the first task is enabled for a first user profile, determining that the first component, for implementing the first task, is enabled for the first user profile, and generating a first runbook can be pure mental process because a developer can determine and generate a first runbook manually using a pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, Under Prong 1. Under Prong 2, the additional limitations, the steps of accessing a hierarchy in a data repository and executing the first runbook are mere data gathering/transmitting for the mental steps and applying the mental steps/outputting the result which are insignificant extra solution activity, using a generic computer component or tool described at a high level of generality for applying or performing the abstract idea, and the media and execution apparatus are recited as generic computing component. They do not indicate any integration of the abstract idea into a practical application as the mental steps are merely applied with a generic computing component(s). See MPEP see MPEP 2106.05(f) /2106.05(h). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components or insignificant extra solution activities (e.g. processors, devices, program instructions), then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1: Abstract idea grouping? Yes, Mental Process). At most, the steps of accessing and execution are not found to include anything more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. In this case, it is noted that the claimed extra-solution of data gathering, transmitting and outputting/applying is acknowledged to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity court recognized as WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), for example, data gathering and retrieving, storing data, updating, transmitting, and displaying a result - Symantec, Versata Dev, Content extraction, Electric Power Group). Insignificant extra solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewing the limitations individually and as a combination, the additional elements merely perform data gathering, outputting/applying and perform the mental steps using generic computing components as tools without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. For at least these reasons, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Per claims 2-15, these claims are directed to the same idea itself as in claim 1, reciting details of the mental steps (determining, identifying, updating, generating, refraining, including, selecting, initializing,) and insignificant solution activities (receiving, accessing) without adding any other additional element that is significantly more., Therefore, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as in claim 1.
Per claims 16-20, these claims are directed to the same idea itself as in claims 1-15, reciting the mental steps without adding any other additional element that is significantly more, other than the generic computing component, hardware process of the device/system. Therefore, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as in claims 1-15.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the term, computer-readable media” is not described in the original specification. The specification describes “computer readable storage medium” on [0091], not computer-readable media.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
While US 20210191769 teaches automated runbook deployment based on confidence evaluation of the skill level of one or more operators providing the commands on which the runbook is generated, US20160308733 is related to configuration of an application for deployment, US 20160142261 is related to performing migration and post-migration configuration based on the application profile; US11593096 (cited) teaches a GUI based development environment allowing modifications to application configuration and a customization interface for creating node diagrams to define background processes; US20220067620 (cited) teaches runbook generation to resolve a problem incident and deployment based on confidence evaluation of operators, US20220058065 (cited) teaches a workflow graph with nodes to perform transformations on data, logic used in navigating the graph and UI associated user interaction components to be rendered and edges for navigating the graph during a user interaction flow; US10877747 (cited) teaches configuring software based on configuration data and processing operational data, based on the configuration data, to identify a set of tasks, from tasks performed by the software, that have been configured; US 20120066620 (cited) teaches UI control framework obtaining a design-time configuration tool and runtime services, wherein the design time configuration tool helps a user to create rules for UI elements and configure a software, ultimately, the prior arts of record, taken alone or in combination, do not teach at least … based at least in part on the first entity representing the first task, determining that the first task is enabled for a first user profile; based at least in part on (a) a first link between the first entity representing the first task and the second entity representing the first component and (b) the second entity indicating that the first component is enabled: determining that the first component, for implementing the first task, is enabled for the first user profile; responsive at least in part to determining that the first component, for implementing the first task, is enabled for the first user profile: generating a first runbook that, when executed, utilizes the first component to implement the first task, wherein an execution apparatus executes the first runbook.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US11593096 teaches automatically reconfiguring an initial arrangement of interlinked components to produce a resultant arrangement of interlinked components forming the data application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INSUN KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3724. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 9am-5pm.
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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/INSUN KANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights