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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/30/2024, 01/06/2026, 02/25/2026, and 05/29/2026 was filed before the mailing of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-10 recite a method (i.e. process), claims 11-15 recite non-transitory machine-readable medium (i.e. machine), claims 16-20 recite a system (i.e. machine). Therefore claims 1-20 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 16 recite the limitations: displaying to a user, potential future operations of the [data processing system]; obtaining from the user, user input based on the potential future operations of the [data processing system]; obtaining, based on the user input, a plan that: is for a point in time indicated by the [graphical user interface], is limited for use by the [data processing system] based on a statistical characterization of the potential future operations of the [data processing system], and defines activity of the [data processing system] at the point in time; and providing computer-implemented services using the [data processing system] and the plan. The claimed invention is drawn towards managing plans for a data processing system using representations of inference model predictions, and the claim limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions or behavior; following rules or instructions) as evidenced by the limitations detailing displaying to a user potential future operations of the data processing system, obtaining input from the user based on the potential future operations, and obtaining a plan based on the user input. The claims also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as evidenced by the claim limitations directly describing the observation and evaluation of data (e.g., potential future operations, user input, etc.), and making a decision (or judgment/opinion) based on the observed and evaluated data (e.g., obtaining a plan for a point in time, defining the activity of the data processing system at the point in time, etc. The claims reciting generic computer components to implement the limitations does not take the claims out of the judicial exception groupings. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: the features or elements in brackets in the above Step 2A Prong One section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a graphical user interface, a data processing system, a non-transitory machine-readable medium (claim 11), a processor (claims 11 and 16), and memory coupled to the processor (claim 16). The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 5, 15, and 20 recite the limitation that updating the [graphical user interface] comprises: updating nodes of an [acyclic graph] of the [graphical user interface] to indicate an occurrence of a new potential future operation based on the potential plan. The limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claims also recite the additional elements of the graphical user interface and a acyclic graph of the user interface. The user interface amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. The acyclic graph amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (inference model predictions for managing data processing plans). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-14, and 17-19 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-14, and 17-19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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)(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(s) 1-3, 9-13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng (US 11,765,789).
Claim 1: A method for managing operation of a data processing system, the method comprising:
displaying, to a user and via a graphical user interface, potential future operations of the data processing system; (Zheng Col. 8, Ln. 8-14 disclosing providing a GUI or other type of interface that enable the user to define a test including the requirements of the test; the test instructions are configured to cause the user device to automatically perform the test (Col. 2, Ln. 46-47); Col. 3, Ln. 46-51 tests 118 may be scheduled for performance by the determined user devices; by a test scheduler 122 of the testing platform 102 and as a result of the scheduling, the testing platform 102 is configured to send test instructions 126 to the determined user devices; Col. 4, Ln. 30-36 the user devices 104 may be configured to operate in different states or modes with respect to the testing platform 102, including an "active" state, an idle state, and a testing state)
obtaining, based on the user input, a plan that: is for a point in time indicated by the graphical user interface, is limited for use by the data processing system based on a statistical characterization of the potential future operations of the data processing system, and defines activity of the data processing system at the point in time; and (Zheng Col. 8, Ln. 13-24 disclosing a GUI of the test definition interface 116 may be configured to enable a user to define a user device state or event to be tested (or to otherwise trigger the test) and to define a timeframe or interval over which the test should be performed; e.g., a test may be defined by a user to be triggered when the user device 20 changes network connections from a Wi-Fi network connection to a cellular network connection and an associated timeframe of one week is defined such that the test is executed at least once by the user device within one week of the test being initiated)
providing computer-implemented services using the data processing system and the plan. (Zheng Col. 11, Ln. 38-41 the sent test instructions 326 include test execution control signals or the like that instruct and/or otherwise cause the user devices to perform operations associated with the test to be executed)
Claims 11 and 16: Claims 11 and 16 are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium and a system, respectively. Claims 11 and 16 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1, which is directed towards a method. Claims 11 and 16 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1. Furthermore, claims 11 and 16 recite:
(Claim 11): A non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing operation of a data processing system the operations comprising: (Zheng Col. 18, Ln. 30-34 disclosing computer system for intelligently managing distributed testing comprises: a processor of a testing platform; and a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon program code for transferring data to another computer system)
(Claim 16): A data processing system, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising: (Zheng Col. 18, Ln. 30-34 disclosing computer system for intelligently managing distributed testing comprises: a processor of a testing platform; and a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon program code for transferring data to another computer system; Col. 16, Ln. 51-53 disclosing computer-readable media may include, for example, computer storage media such as a memory 622)
Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the graphical user interface comprises an acyclic graph indicating any number of different potential future operation of the potential future operations, and probabilities of each different future operation of the potential future operations occurring. (Zheng Col. 6, Ln. 41-67 disclosing prediction model generator 212 is configured to use the usage data 210 to determine a usage pattern or patterns 232 of the associated user device and those usage patterns 232 are then used to generate and/or train the device-specific usage prediction model; usage pattern may include data that indicates identified patterns in the user device behavior over time, e.g., patterns of activity of the user device with respect to periods of time, such as events per day, events per week, or events hour, network establishment, etc.; different and/or more complex usage patterns may be identified and used by the prediction model generator; Col. 7, Ln. 10-18 the prediction model generator 212 is configured to train the device-specific usage prediction model 214 using machine learning techniques; Col. 7, Ln. 19-22 the training of the device-specific usage prediction models 214 includes machine learning techniques that use, for instance, a trained regressor such as…a directed acyclic graph; Col. 7, Ln. 36-43 the device-specific usage prediction model 214 is configured to predict predicted usage context data 236, such as a likelihood that a user device will enter a particular device state or that a particular device event will occur on the user device)
Claims 12 and 17: Claims 12 and 17 are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium and a system, respectively. Claims 12 and 17 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 2, which is directed towards a method. Claims 12 and 17 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2.
Claim 3: The method of claim 2, wherein the user input indicates that at least one of the probabilities is to be used as at least a part of the statistical characterization. (Zheng Col. 7, Ln. 44-52 a device event ( e.g., the user device executing a specific application) and a time interval ( e.g., within the next six hours or within the next three days) may be provided as input to the usage prediction model 214 and the output from the usage prediction model 214 may be a context data value indicating a likelihood that the device event will occur within the input time interval (e.g., an 85% likelihood that 50 the specific application will be executed within the time interval))
Claims 13 and 18: Claims 13 and 18 are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium and a system, respectively. Claims 13 and 18 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 3, which is directed towards a method. Claims 13 and 18 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 3.
Claim 9: The method of claim 1, wherein providing the computer-implemented services comprises: instructing the data processing system to perform the plan. (Zheng Col. 11, Ln. 38-41 the sent test instructions 326 include test execution control signals or the like that instruct and/or otherwise cause the user devices to perform operations associated with the test to be executed)
Claim 10: The method of claim 1, wherein the plan is further limited for use based on a likelihood of an outcome for the plan occurring. (Zheng Col. 3, Ln. 42-46 testing platform uses the generated usage prediction models 114 and associated configuration data 108 by a test scheduler 122 to determine which user devices 104 are likely to satisfy 45 test requirements 120 of tests 118; Col. 6, Ln. 11-22 device ay operate according to pooling where the user device requests tests from the platform when the device is idle, etc.; Col. 7, Ln. 36-59 the device-specific usage prediction model 214 is configured to predict predicted usage context data 236, such as a likelihood that a user device will enter a particular device state or that a particular device event will occur on the user device; Col. 8, Ln. 34-37; Col. 10, Ln. 15-31 and 32-Col. 11, Ln. 4 disclosing identifying user devices compatible with a test based on various percentage thresholds and probabilities; Col. 15, Ln. 26-37)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 4, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (US 11,765,789) in view of Langseth (US 9,389,909).
Claim 4: The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the plan comprises:
updating the graphical user interface to indicate an impact of a potential plan defined by the user; obtaining, from the user, confirmation regarding acceptability of the impact; and in a first instance of the obtaining where the impact is acceptable: using the potential plan as the plan; and in a second instance of the obtaining where the impact is not acceptable: evaluating other potential plans defined by the user to obtain the plan.
Zheng discloses the impact of a potential plan, but does not explicitly disclose updating the graphical user interface to indicate an impact of a potential plan defined by the user; obtaining, from the user, confirmation regarding acceptability of the impact; and in a first instance of the obtaining where the impact is acceptable: using the potential plan as the plan; and in a second instance of the obtaining where the impact is not acceptable: evaluating other potential plans defined by the user to obtain the plan. Langseth suggests this limitation/concept: (Langseth Col. 2, Ln. 7-11 multiple plans may be related to obtaining results related to different data sets. In such implementations, prioritization of the plans may cause results related to a given data set to be returned sooner than results related to one or more other data sets; Col. 5, Ln. 42-25 also disclosing costs associated with executing the plans; Col. 3, Ln. 36-37 disclosing prioritizing the execution of the plans based on data from the partial execution of the plans; Col. 3, Ln. 48-52 the user interface may be programmed to receive entry by users and/or selection by users of a first attribute group and second attrite group corresponding to a request for values; Col. 4, Ln 46-58 disclosing the first and second plan being different and having different nodes and connections; Col. 6, Ln. 21-33 disclosing executing the prioritized plan and suspending or canceling execution of non-prioritized plans; Col. 7, Ln. 3-25 disclosing further analyzing the plans and switching the prioritized to non-prioritized and vice versa; subsequent plan exertion suspension and continuations may be performed based on on-the-fly cost determinations; Col. 7, Ln. 64-67 disclosing the organization or reorganization of a plan may be submitted by a system administrator). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zheng to include updating the graphical user interface to indicate an impact of a potential plan defined by the user; obtaining, from the user, confirmation regarding acceptability of the impact; and in a first instance of the obtaining where the impact is acceptable: using the potential plan as the plan; and in a second instance of the obtaining where the impact is not acceptable: evaluating other potential plans defined by the user to obtain the plan as taught by Langseth since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately; one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 14 and 19: Claims 14 and 19 are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium and a system, respectively. Claims 14 and 19 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 4, which is directed towards a method. Claims 14 and 19 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 15, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
No prior art is applied to the following claims:
Claim 5: The method of claim 4, wherein updating the graphical user interface comprises: updating nodes of an acyclic graph of the graphical user interface to indicate an occurrence of a new potential future operation based on the potential plan.
Claim 6: The method of claim 4, wherein updating the graphical user interface comprises: updating edges between nodes of an acyclic graph of the graphical user interface to indicate a change in likelihood of occurrence of the potential future operations based on the potential plan.
Claim 7: The method of claim 4, wherein updating the graphical user interface comprises: adding an acyclic graph that indicates updated potential future operations of the data processing system with the plan being enforced by the data processing system.
Claim 8: The method of claim 7, wherein the graphical user interface comprises a second acyclic graph that indicates the potential future operations of the data processing system without the plan being enforced by the data processing system.
Claim 15: The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 14, wherein updating the graphical user interface comprises: updating nodes of an acyclic graph of the graphical user interface to indicate an occurrence of a new potential future operation based on the potential plan.
Claim 20: The data processing system of claim 19, wherein updating the graphical user interface comprises: updating nodes of an acyclic graph of the graphical user interface to indicate an occurrence of a new potential future operation based on the potential plan.
The patent or patent application prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention is Zheng (US 11,765,789) which discloses a system for intelligently managing distribution of tests to user devices. Device data is obtained from a user device via a network connection and a usage prediction model associated with the user device is generated based on the device data. Predicted usage context data of the user device is determined based on the usage prediction model. A test scheduled to be performed using distributed testing is identified based on the test including test requirements that are satisfied by the device data and the predicted usage context data of the user device. The prior art reference does not appear to disclose the limitations of the dependent claims. The claims appear to overcome the prior art.
The closest non-patent literature prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention is the publication “Overview of the capacity planning process for production data processing” (Bronner, 1980) which discloses various capacity planning techniques, considering the parameters are to be collected to characterize the workload, parameters are to be collected to characterize the software and hardware components, parameters are required to forecast future workloads and system performance, and how the data processing executive manages installation on a continuing basis using the data described above and the results of analysis (required reports, reporting formats, report flow, recipients, etc.). Th e publication does not appear to discloses the details of the dependent claims. The claims appear to overcome the prior art reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights