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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-- requirement manual -- should be -- requirement of manual -- in [0045].
-- 306 may thus -- should be -- 306 thus -- in [0066].
-- generation the signal -- should be -- generation of the signal -- in [0078].
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term REACT, JavaScript etc, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Drawing
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
-- block 404 is decision block and should be diamond shape with two alternative outcome -- in fig. 4.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following claim language is not clearly understood:
Claim 1 recites “status …associated...resource”. It is unclear what are the resources, and what are possible states/statues of the resource.
Claim 1 recites “modification enabling framework” without clearly reciting what is modification enabling framework.
Claim 1 recites “overview about the resource” without clearly reciting what constitutes the overview.
Claims 11 and 17 recite elements of claim 1 and have similar deficiency as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rationales. Remaining dependent claims 2-10, and 18-20 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claims.
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 or integrating into practical application.
Claims 1-20 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Examples of abstract ideas include at least Mathematical concepts, Mental process and Certain Methods of organizing human activity.
Step 1
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 1 recites a system comprising processors, which falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 11 recites a method, which falls within the “process” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 17 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which falls within the “machine / manufacture” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, the analysis determines whether the claims recite a judicial exception and fail to integrate the exception into practical application. If both elements are satisfied, the claims are directed to a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test.
Step 2A Prong One
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Claim Elements
i
1. A system comprising: a processor to:
generic compute
ii
receive a first signal in response to occurrence of a change in an operational status indicator associated with a resource,
Mental process abstract idea; information gathering
iii
the resource having associated therewith:
description
iv
a specification providing an overview about the resource; and
description
v
the operational status indicator indicating whether the resource is engaged with a modification enabling framework,
Mental process abstract idea
vi
wherein the resource is to be engaged with the modification enabling framework to create a data file for being linked with the resource;
generic compute
vii
ascertain, based on the operational status indicator, whether to trigger generation of a virtual instance of the modification enabling framework for creating a data file for being linked with the resource,
Mental process abstract idea
viii
the data file comprising at least one of a commit message and an executable content;
description
ix
receive a second signal in response to occurrence of a subsequent change in the operational status indicator associated with the resource,
Mental process abstract idea
x
wherein the subsequent change in the operational status indicator is to indicate that creation of the data file has been at least partially completed;
Mental process abstract idea
xi
in response to receiving the second signal, trigger: parsing of at least one of the executable content and the commit message of the data file;
Mental process abstract idea
xii
generation of an updated specification for being associated with the resource, the updated specification providing an updated overview of the resource based on at least one of the executable content and the commit message of the data file; and
Mental process, generic compute
xiii
generate a resource updation signal to associate the updated specification with the resource.
Mental process, generic compute
The overall process described by steps [ii], [v], [vii], [ix]-[xiii] describes “concepts performed in the human mind” or “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion.” Thus steps [ii], [v], [vii], [ix]-[xiii] recite the abstract concept of [m]ental processes”. For example, step [ii] recites “receive a first signal in response to occurrence of a change in an operational status indicator associated with a resource”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and can be performed by human mind. Claim 1 steps [vii], [ix] also recite similar elements as step [ii]. Similarly, step [v] recites “the operational status indicator indicating whether the resource is engaged with a modification enabling framework,”, which is a combination of observation, judgement, opinion and evaluation and can be performed by human mind. Claim 1 in element [vii] teaches “ascertain, based on the operational status indicator, whether to trigger generation of a virtual instance of the modification enabling framework for creating a data file for being linked with the resource”, which is a combination of observation, judgement, opinion and evaluation and can be performed by human mind. Claim 1 in step [x] recites “wherein the subsequent change in the operational status indicator is to indicate that creation of the data file has been at least partially completed”, which is a combination of observation, judgement, opinion and evaluation and can be performed by human mind. Claim 1 in step [xi] recites “in response to receiving the second signal, trigger: parsing of at least one of the executable content and the commit message of the data file” which can be performed by human mind with or without the help of pen and paper. Claim 1 in step [xii] recites “generation of an updated specification for being associated with the resource, the updated specification providing an updated overview of the resource based on at least one of the executable content and the commit message of the data file”, which is a combination of observation, judgement, opinion and evaluation and can be performed by human mind. Claim 1 in step [xiii] recites “generate a resource updation signal to associate the updated specification with the resource”, which is a combination of observation, judgement, opinion and evaluation and can be performed by human mind.
Therefore, steps [ii], [v], [vii], [ix]-[xiii] resembles the idea of performing observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion according to the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claim elements and can be performed by human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception. For these same reasons and based on similar analysis, claims 11 and 17 recite judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Because claims 1, 11 and 17 recite a judicial exception, Analysis determines if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application. In addition to the limitations of claim 1 discussed above that recite the abstract concepts, claim 1 also recites additional steps [i], [iii]-[iv], [vi], and [viii]. Claim 1 in step [i] recites “system comprising: a processor”, which is generic compute system and do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 1 in step [iii]-[iv] recite “ resource having associated there with a specification providing an overview about the resource, which merely describes resource with associated description, and is neither inventive nor provide improvement to the technology and/or technical field. Claim 1 in step [vi] recites “wherein the resource is to be engaged with the modification enabling framework to create a data file for being linked with the resource”, which is directed to creating a file and is ordinary and generic computing activity and can’t integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 1 in step [viii] recites “the data file comprising at least one of a commit message and an executable content”, which is also common e.g. a log file and do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. In addition, the identified steps reciting mental process abstract idea above, additional elements also recite elements like receiving signal, generating specification, generating signal, all of which are common computing and do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations recited in claim 1 from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, the additional claim elements recited in steps [i], [iii]-[iv], [vi], and [viii], under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception without integrating into abstract idea. For these same reasons and based on similar analysis as above, claims 11 and 17 also recite judicial exception without integrating into abstract idea.
Step 2B
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)).
Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Because claims 1, 11 and 17 are directed to judicial exception, analysis must determine, according to Alice, whether these claims recite an element, or combination of elements that is enough to ensure that the claim is directed to significantly more than a judicial exception.
The Memorandum, Section III (B) (footnote 36) states:
In accordance with existing guidance, an Examiner’s conclusion that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must be supported with a factual determination. For more information concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, convention activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum.
The Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III(A)(1) states:
A Specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, on in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 §U.S.C. 112(a). A finding that an element is well-understood, routine, or conventional cannot be based only on the fact that the specification is silent with respect to describing such element.
As explained above, claim 1 recites additional steps [i], [iii]-[iv], [vi], and [viii]. Claim 1 in step [i] recites “system comprising: a processor”, which is generic compute system as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 1 in step [iii]-[iv] recite “resource having associated there with a specification providing an overview about the resource, which merely describes resource with associated description, and is generic computing as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art (background; cited prior arts).Claim 1 in step [vi] recites “wherein the resource is to be engaged with the modification enabling framework to create a data file for being linked with the resource”, which is directed to creating a file or associating with a program to create a files and is ordinary and generic computing activity as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art (background; cited prior arts), and therefore, do not amount to significantly more. Claim 1 in step [viii] recites “the data file comprising at least one of a commit message and an executable content”, which is also common e.g. a log file and therefore, do not amount to significantly more. As such these additional claim elements are not directed to anything beyond conventional nature of these elements or otherwise more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field of computing. These limitations either alone or in combination simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Further, the Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations as recited in the claim from a generic implementation of the abstract idea.
As such, it has been recognized by court that receiving, processing, and storing data as well as receiving or transmitting data over a network are a well-understood, routine and conventional activities. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (generic computer components, such as interface, “network”, and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); see also TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d 607; Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1350. There is no indication that the recited claim elements override the conventional use of known features or involve an unconventional arrangement or combination of elements such that the particular combination of generic technology results in anything beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and output. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”) See also Customedia Techs. LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1366(Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he invocation of ‘already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance…amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.”)(quoting SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898F3.d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355(Fed. Cir 2014)(“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network -- with no further specification -- is not even arguably inventive.”).
Thus, additional claim elements, either alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, claims 1, 11 and 17 are directed to judicial exception without integrating into practical application and do not amount to significantly more.
Dependent claim 2 recites “to render a first graphical interface, wherein the first graphical interface is to indicate at least one of: the operational status indicator associated with the resource; an actionable component allowing to change the operational status indicator; and an interactive component enabling submission of the changed operational status indicator”, which is directed to user interface with status indicator. User interface is common and used for data displaying, and is neither inventive nor amount to significantly more.
Dependent claim 3 recites “wherein submission of the changed operational status indicator through the interactive component is to cause generation and transmission of the first signal, and wherein submission of the subsequently changed operational status indicator through the interactive component is to cause generation and transmission of the second signal; which is directed to inputting information to the user interface and resembles the idea of information gathering, and generating signal and transmitting, and is neither inventive nor amount to significantly more.
Dependent claim 4 recites “to trigger rendering of a second graphical interface, wherein the second graphical interface is to receive instance data for being linked with the virtual instance”, which is directed to user interface for receiving information, and is considered information gathering activity.
Dependent claim 5 recites “wherein the instance data comprises unique identification information enabling identification of the virtual instance”, which further describes the identification information, and do not impose further limitations to make the claim patent eligible.
Dependent claim 6 recites “the second graphical interface comprises at least one decision element, and wherein the processor is to trigger generation of the virtual instance based on occurrence of an interaction with the at least one decision element”, which is directed to information gathering. Claim is further directed to trigger generation of virtual instance and is common as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art.
Dependent claim 7 recites “to trigger an advanced learning model for the parsing of at least one of the executable content and the commit message of the data file and the generation of the updated specification”, which is directed to parsing and is considered mental process abstract idea because parsing can be performed by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper.
Dependent claim 8 recites “wherein the advanced learning model is capable of performing natural language processing (NLP)”, which is directed to well-known machine learning model.
Dependent claim 9 recites “a data repository communicably coupled with the processor, wherein the data repository is to store the updated specification”, which is generic computing, as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art.
Dependent claim 10 recites “wherein the second signal is indicative of a pull request, wherein the processor, in response to receiving the second signal, is to cause storing of the updated specification in the data repository”, which is generic computing, as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art.
Based on similar analysis as above, dependent claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-20 -12 recite claim elements that are either abstract idea or additional claim elements, that individually or in combination, are either generic computing methods/components or insignificant pre-post solution activity and neither integrate into practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to judicial exception without integrating into practical application or significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunzema (US 2023/0147631 A1) in view of Studer et al. (US 2009/0327196 A1, hereafter Studer), and further in view Buliani et al. (US 12,530,173 B1, hereafter Buliani).
As per claim 1, Brunzema teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a system comprising (fig. 8 800): a processor to (fig. 8 810 815):
receive a first signal in response to occurrence ([0041] checks to see if whether the flag is set [0043] flags, global, specific to a particular feature or parameter, flag, true [0063] communication, computing entity, modulated signal to encode information) of a change in an operational status indicator associated with a resource ([0029] checks the state of a computing environment, determine if the current state deviates from the state as set forth in the state definition), the resource having associated therewith ([0029] computing environment [0020] making changes, computing environment, specific resources, to reach the specified state):
a specification providing an overview about the resource ([0029] computing environment, state definition); and
the operational status indicator indicating whether the resource is engaged with a modification enabling framework ([0049] check whether a semaphore indicates that another process is operating or mutex lock is obtained), wherein the resource is to be engaged with the modification enabling framework to create a data file for being linked with the resource ([0019] computing environment, implements, database application, marshaling computing resources for database and configuring the database for use [0037] fig. 5 custom resource, database application, backup and restore function);
ascertain, based on the operational status indicator ([0049] check whether a semaphore indicates that another process is operating or mutex lock is obtained [0039] determine whether the script server is running - if nor running), whether to trigger generation of a virtual instance of the modification enabling framework for creating a data file for being linked with the resource ([0039] periodically check of the state of database, determine whether the script server 526 is running, if the script server is not running, starting an instance of the script server, periodically causing backups to be created, removing outdated backups or recovered from backup), the data file comprising at least one of a message and content ([0039] causing backup to be created );
receive a second signal ([0041] checks to see if whether the flag is set [0043] flags, global, specific to a particular feature or parameter, flag, true [0063] communication, computing entity, modulated signal to encode information) in response to occurrence of a subsequent change in the operational status indicator associated with the resource ([0029] checks the state of a computing environment, determine if the current state deviates from the state as set forth in the state definition [0020] making changes, computing environment, specific resources, to reach the specified state), wherein the subsequent change in the operational status indicate that at least partially completed ([0021] alter a state managed by an operator pattern [0022] operator, wait until such action is complete before determining whether a state needs to be updates);
generation of an updated specification for being associated with the resource ([0021] updating the state definition), the updated specification providing an updated overview of the resource ([0021] updating the state definition, maintain the updated state definition [0022] state, needs, updated [0020] making changes, computing environment, specific resources, to reach the specified state [0032]); and
generate a resource updation signal to associate the updated specification with the resource ([0033] update event has occurred, trigger the setting of an update flag [0034] [0020] making changes, computing environment, specific resources, to reach the specified state ).
Brunzema doesn’t specifically teach the data file comprising at least one of a commit message and an executable content; change in the operational status indicator is to indicate that creation of the data file; in response to receiving the second signal, trigger: parsing of at least one of the executable content and the commit message of the data file; updated overview of the resource based on at least one of the executable content and the commit message of the data file.
Studer, however, teaches the data file comprising at least one of a commit message and an executable content ([0190] log file, storage, log messages, log messages corresponding to triggered rule [0206] log messages, log file, replay the execution of rules set [0207] logging statements, making a call to write_to_log [0243] log specific execution information);
change in the operational status indicator is to indicate that creation of the data file has been at least partially completed ([0206] log file, analyzed, post execution, determine which rules were executed, playback, auditing, can indicate the file is completed or not);
parsing of at least one of the executable content and the commit message of the data file ([0206] log messages, analyzed, post-execution [0243] log specific execution information);
overview of the resource based on at least one of the executable content and the commit message of the data file ([0206] log file, analyzed, post execution, determine which rules were executed, playback, auditing [0207] logging statements, making a call to write_to_log [0243] log specific execution information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Brunzema with the teachings of Studer of log file comprising statement like call to write to log, execution information, analyzing log messages, auditing the log file or replaying the log file to determine which rules were executed by analyzing to improve efficiency and allow the data file comprising at least one of a commit message and an executable content; change in the operational status indicator is to indicate that creation of the data file; parsing of at least one of the executable content and the commit message of the data file; overview of the resource based on at least one of the executable content and the commit message of the data file to the method of Brunzema as in the instant invention. The combination would have been obvious because applying the known method of creating/maintaining/updating the logfile comprising the execution information, and/or call to write to log, analyzing the log file, auditing / replaying the log file taught by Studer to the method of Brunzema to yield expected results and improved efficiency.
Brunzema and Studer, in combination, do not specifically teach in response to receiving the second signal, trigger: parsing; updated overview of the resource.
Buliani, however, teaches in response to receiving the second signal, trigger: parsing (col 12 lines 55-67 parsing the response in try catch statement; col 15 lines 20-25 response definitions, parse those responses);
updated overview of the resource (col 8 lines 32-35 resources, ready state; col 26 lines 25-30 software system from a current state to an updated state that includes the change; col 31 lines 45-50 display, differences between states or versions of a software system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Brunzema and Studer with the teachings of Buliani of parsing the responses, resources states including software system current state, updated state, differences between states to improve efficiency and allow in response to receiving the second signal, trigger: parsing; updated overview of the resource to the method of Brunzema and Studer as in the instant invention. The combination would have been obvious because applying the known method of
parsing the response and system states e.g. current / updated states as taught by Buliani to the method of Brunzema and Studer to yield expected results and improved efficiency.
As per claim 2, Brunzema teaches the operational status indicator associated with the resource ([0041] checks to see if whether the flag is set [0043] flags, global, specific to a particular feature or parameter, flag, true [0029] checks the state of a computing environment, determine if the current state deviates from the state as set forth in the state definition).
Studer teaches remaining claim elements of processor is to render a first graphical interface ([0243] graphical user interface), wherein the first graphical interface is to indicate at least one of:
an actionable component allowing to change the operational status indicator ([0243] log specific execution information, input each entry, attribute defined, each rule set [0205] fig. 4 user interface 400 specifying when a log message is created 410 [0205] cell state, logging); and
an interactive component enabling submission of the changed operational status indicator ([0205] fig. 4 user interface 400 specifying what is included in each log messages 420 ).
As per claim 3, Brunzema teaches cause generation and transmission of the first signal ([0041] checks to see if whether the flag is set [0043] flags, global, specific to a particular feature or parameter, flag, true [0063] communication, computing entity, modulated signal to encode information), is to cause generation and transmission of the second signal ([0041] checks to see if whether the flag is set [0043] flags, global, specific to a particular feature or parameter, flag, true [0063] communication, computing entity, modulated signal to encode information).
Studer teaches remaining claim elements of submission of the changed operational status indicator through the interactive component (0205] fig. 4 user interface 400 log message is created 410 specifying what is included in each log messages 420).
As per claim 4, Brunzema teaches wherein the processor is to trigger instance data linked with the virtual instance ([0039] periodically check of the state of database, determine whether the script server 526 is running, if the script server is not running, starting an instance of the script server, periodically causing backups to be created, removing outdated backups or recovered from backup).
Studer teaches remaining claim elements of trigger rendering of a second graphical interface ([0023] providing an interface for configuring [0038] customizing information in a graphical interface ), wherein the second graphical interface is to receive instance data for being linked with the virtual instance ([0125] user identifies the input dataset, input variable table is populated, metadata of input dataset [0243] user, input, entry, graphical user interface deployment name [0141] identify a logical entity).
As per claim 5, Brunzema teaches the virtual instance ([0037] script server ).
Studer teaches remaining claim elements of wherein the instance data comprises unique identification information enabling identification of the virtual instance ([0125] user identifies the input dataset, input variable table is populated, metadata of input dataset [0243] user, input, entry, graphical user interface deployment name [0141] identify a logical entity).
As per claim 6, Brunzema teaches wherein the processor is to trigger generation of the virtual instance based on occurrence of the at least one decision element ([0039] periodically check of the state of database, determine whether the script server 526 is running, if the script server is not running, starting an instance of the script server, periodically causing backups to be created, removing outdated backups or recovered from backup).
Studer teaches remaining claim elements of wherein the second graphical interface comprises at least one decision element, and interaction with the at least one decision elements ([0038] customizing, information. Graphical user interface [0205] not log cell state; this function is activated in a user interface).
As per claim 7, Brunzema teaches wherein the processor is to trigger the generation of the updated specification ([0021] updating the state definition, maintain the updated state definition [0022] state, needs, updated [0020] making changes, computing environment, specific resources, to reach the specified state).
Studer teaches remaining claim elements of parsing of at least one of the executable content and the commit message of the data file ([0206] log messages, analyzed, post-execution [0243] log specific execution information [0190] log file, storage, log messages, log messages corresponding to triggered rule [0207] logging statements, making a call to write_to_log).
Buliani teaches remaining claim elements of trigger an advanced learning model (col 10 lines 54-64 interact with LLM).
As per claim 8, Buliani teaches wherein the advanced learning model is capable of performing natural language processing (NLP) (col 15 lines 20-35 LLM to respond in natural language forms).
As per claim 9, Brunzema teaches a data repository communicably coupled with the processor, wherein the data repository is to store the updated specification ( [0059] computing system 800 processing units 810 memory 820 [0068] fig. 9 data storage repositories [0021] maintain updated state definition).
As per claim 10, Brunzema taches wherein the second signal is indicative of a pull request, wherein the processor, in response to receiving the second signal ([0040] client system, issue/ read/ write and update requests, issuing recovery/restore commands), is to cause storing of the updated specification in the data repository specification ( [0059] computing system 800 processing units 810 memory 820 [0068] fig. 9 data storage repositories [0021] maintain updated state definition [0041] backup, request, updates the state information, flag, set).
Claim 11 recites method for elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
As per claim 12, Brunzema teaches the method comprising generating the virtual instance of the modification enabling framework ([0039] script server 526, determine whether the script server 526 is running, starting instance of the script server), wherein the first signal is to be generated ([0041] checks to see if whether the flag is set [0043] flags, global, specific to a particular feature or parameter, flag, true [0063] communication, computing entity, modulated signal to encode information; [0039] script server 526, determine whether the script server 526 is running, starting instance of the script server).
Studer teaches remaining claim elements of rendering a first graphical interface to allow submission of a request ([0243] graphical user interface; fig. 4; [0243] log specific execution information, input each entry, attribute defined, each rule set [0205] fig. 4 user interface 400 specifying when a log message is created 410 [0205] cell state, logging)
Claim 13 recites the elements similar to combination of claims 4 and 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 14 recites the elements similar to combination of claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 15 recites the elements similar to combination of claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 16 recites the elements similar to combination of claim 8. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 17 recites non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions being executable by a processing resource for elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 18 recites non-transitory computer-readable medium for elements similar to claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 19 recites non-transitory computer-readable medium for elements similar to claim 8. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 20 recites elements similar to part of claim 15. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Examiners Note
Applicant is further reminded of that the cited paragraphs and in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant(s) and although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider all of the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eberlein et al. (US 2016/0019042 A1) teaches optimizing software change processes using real-time analysis and rule based hinting.
S. et al. (US 2023/0214203 A1) teaches increased resource usage efficiency in providing updates to distributed computing devices.
Tidwell et al. (US 7,225,139 B1) teaches trouble tracking system.
Vasanth et al. (US 12554468 B1) teaches system for a customizable state machine controller based application deployment engine.
Authorization for Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit an authorization to communicate with the Examiner via the internet by making the following statement (MPEP 502.03)
“Recognizing that internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only by submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner’s Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABU GHAFFARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3799. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 14:00 - 15:00 Hrs.
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, Aimee Lee can be reached on 571-272-4169. 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.
/ABU ZAR GHAFFARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights