DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the application filed 06/28/2024.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-20, the independent claims (claims 1, 11 and 20) are directed, in part, to computer embodiments for batch processing.
Step 1 – Independent claims 1 (system), 11 (method), and 20 (memory) and dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e. machine), claim 11 is directed to a method (i.e. process), and claim 20 is directed to a memory (i.e. manufacture). However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process which includes observations or evaluations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to automated batch data process impact evaluation… extracting one or more operational logs corresponding to execution of one or more data processes representing one or more batch data process jobs, each of the one or more operational logs including fields corresponding to batch flow status, batch flow payload, and batch flow schedule; identifying, from the one or more operational logs and the fields corresponding to batch flow payload, an estimated impact value of each batch data process job of the one or more batch data process jobs; monitoring the execution of the one or more data processes using the fields corresponding to batch flow status to identify differences with the fields corresponding to the batch flow schedule; and generating an alert, notification, or control instruction if weighted differences in timing of the batch flow schedule exceeds a pre-defined threshold, the weighted differences weighted based on the estimated impact value of each batch data process job. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements: computer, system, processor, memory, non-transitory computer readable medium. These additional element in both steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 1 and 2 and related text and [0005] and [0093] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “In particular, a computer implemented system for automated batch data process impact evaluation is proposed that can be operated on computing hardware, such as a computer server or a mainframe device. The computing hardware includes a computer processor operating in conjunction with computer memory; The specialized computing apparatus can reside in a data center and can be electronically coupled to downstream computing resources and batch processing machines, and in some embodiments, can be a computer software that can control resource allocation, such as a hypervisor, a supervisor system, or a supervisor of supervisor systems, which propagate instruction sets and execution commands that are utilized to modify computer execution aspects such as hardware control and operating system control.” Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(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(s) 1, 10-11, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2010/0153154 (hereinafter; Bergantino).
Regarding claims 1/11/20, Bergantino discloses:
A computer implemented system; A computer implemented method; A non-transitory computer readable medium for automated batch data process impact evaluation, (Bergantino [0041-0044] disclose a batch process; Process order creation may be initiated in the ERP system of LP (e.g., 110, 112 and 114). For example, the user of the LP may perform a manual batch allocation (518) for the components for the process order release process; […]process orders created in MCHub 104 may be automatically released by the process order management flow of MCHub 104.) the computer implemented system including a computer processor operating in conjunction with computer memory, the computer processor configured to: extract one or more operational logs corresponding to execution of one or more data processes representing one or more batch data process jobs, (Bergantino [0036] discloses batch logs (i.e. records); The batch record updating, the batch disposition (436) and the usage decision (432) are also performed on MCHub 104 and the usage decision is communicated to the LP.) each of the one or more operational logs including fields corresponding to batch flow status, (Bergantino [0067] discloses batch status.) batch flow payload, (Bergantino [0036] discloses a costing calculation.) and batch flow schedule; (Bergantino Tables 0007- 0008 disclose batch scheduling.) identify, from the one or more operational logs and the fields corresponding to batch flow payload, an estimated impact value of each batch data process job of the one or more batch data process jobs; (Bergantino [0134] discloses logistics planning impact.) monitor the execution of the one or more data processes using the fields corresponding to batch flow status to identify differences with the fields corresponding to the batch flow schedule; (Bergantino [0121] discloses difference in phases.)
and generate an alert, notification, or control instruction if weighted differences in timing of the batch flow schedule exceeds a pre-defined threshold, the weighted differences weighted based on the estimated impact value of each batch data process job. (Bergantino [0033] discloses data messages related to processing.)
Regarding claim 10, Bergantino discloses:
The computer implemented system of claim 1, wherein the batch data processes are mainframe data processes. (Bergantino [0011] discloses computer program products.)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 2-9, 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergantino in view of US Pub. No. 2010/0262975 (hereinafter; Reysa)
Regarding claims 2/12, although Bergantino discloses a batch processing system, Bergantino does not specifically disclose re-allocating resources. However, Reysa discloses the following limitations:
The computer implemented system of claim 1; The computer implemented method of claim 11, wherein the control instruction includes re-allocating available computing resources to reduce the weighted differences in timing of the batch flow schedule by expediting a subset of the one or more batch data process jobs through allocating additional computing resources. (Reysa [0009] discloses reallocating computer resources.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the manufacturing collaboration Hub of Bergantino with the automated workload selection system of Reysa in order to validate workload results (Reysa abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claims 3/13, Bergantino discloses:
The computer implemented system of claim 2; The computer implemented method of claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured to identify, from the fields corresponding to the batch flow schedule, one or more batch flow dependencies, and the one or more batch flow processes and batch flow dependencies are modelled as a set of interconnected nodal data objects that are traversed during the identification of the differences with the fields corresponding to the batch flow schedule. (Bergantino [0078]; [0096] discloses a batch model and a data flow model.)
Regarding claims 4/14, although Bergantino discloses a batch processing system, Bergantino does not specifically disclose weighted differences or interconnected nodal objects. However, Reysa discloses the following limitations:
The computer implemented system of claim 3; The computer implemented method of claim 13, wherein the weighted differences are generated based on a traversal of the interconnected nodal data objects, and the traversal of the interconnected nodal data objects includes generating a probability adjusted path weight based on probability metadata stored thereon each of the interconnected nodal data objects indicative of historical success or failure event data. (Reysa [0037] discloses a weighted system; [0042] discloses a nodal system.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the manufacturing collaboration Hub of Bergantino with the automated workload selection system of Reysa in order to validate workload results (Reysa abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claims 5/15, although Bergantino discloses a batch processing system, Bergantino does not specifically disclose interconnected nodal objects. However, Reysa discloses the following limitations:
The computer implemented system of claim 3; The computer implemented method of claim 13, wherein the interconnected nodal data objects are utilized to render interactive control elements of a graphical user interface. (Reysa [0042] discloses a nodal system.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the manufacturing collaboration Hub of Bergantino with the automated workload selection system of Reysa in order to validate workload results (Reysa abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claims 6/16, although Bergantino discloses a batch processing system, Bergantino does not specifically disclose priorities. However, Reysa discloses the following limitations:
The computer implemented system of claim 2; The computer implemented method of claim 12, wherein the re-allocating of the available computing resources is prioritized for a currently dispatched batch data process having a highest estimated impact value. (Reysa [0027] hierarchical discloses priorities.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the manufacturing collaboration Hub of Bergantino with the automated workload selection system of Reysa in order to validate workload results (Reysa abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned
Regarding claims 7/17, although Bergantino discloses a batch processing system, Bergantino does not specifically disclose a display. However, Reysa discloses the following limitations:
The computer implemented system of claim 5; The computer implemented method of claim 15, wherein the interactive control elements include one or more graphical display options that are modified based at least upon the weighted differences in timing of the batch flow schedule for the corresponding nodal data object. (Reysa [0072] discloses a display.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the manufacturing collaboration Hub of Bergantino with the automated workload selection system of Reysa in order to validate workload results (Reysa abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claims 8/18, although Bergantino discloses a batch processing system, Bergantino does not specifically disclose re-allocating resources. However, Reysa discloses the following limitations:
The computer implemented system of claim 1; The computer implemented method of claim 11, wherein the re-allocating of available computing resources includes requesting additional available computing resources to be provisioned. (Reysa [0009] discloses reallocating computer resources.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the manufacturing collaboration Hub of Bergantino with the automated workload selection system of Reysa in order to validate workload results (Reysa abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claims 9/19, although Bergantino discloses a batch processing system, Bergantino does not specifically disclose re-allocating resources. However, Reysa discloses the following limitations:
The computer implemented system of claim 1, wherein the re-allocating of available computing resources includes re-assigning computing resources from lower impact batch data processes. (Reysa [0009] discloses reallocating computer resources.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the manufacturing collaboration Hub of Bergantino with the automated workload selection system of Reysa in order to validate workload results (Reysa abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm EST.
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, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights