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 .
Detail Action
This office action is in response to the application filed on 8/19/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 18 recites the limitation of “A computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed by a mainframe system, cause the mainframe system to perform the steps of claim 1.” Since the recited computer program product comprising instructions which is software without specific embodiment of hardware. Software is not considered statutory subject matter.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7, 11-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. Claims 6-7 and 15-17 recite acronyms DB2 and IMS. Because they are not defined in the claim, the claims are considered indefinite. Claims 11-13 recite acronym REXX which is not defined in the claims and is considered indefinite.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the version of the environment library". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In claim 1, there are two versions of environment library defined: ephemeral version and default version. It is indefinite because “the version” can be either one of the above.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The Specification does not provide definitions of acronyms DD2, IMS, or REXX in the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saboff (6,154,878) in view of Golde et al. (US 2008/0134163 Al) and further in view of Yao et al. (US 20200285488 A1)
Per claim 1,
Saboff discloses
A computer-implemented method for handling system downtime, the system comprising an environment library that supports the execution of one or more applications on the system, the environment library having a default version, the method comprising: (c1-c2, discloses downtime management of library replacement for an application. C8: 30-50, discloses default software library. C9:10-25, managing versions of software library with an scenario of second version replace first version. C4:56 – c5:10, discloses replaceable system including interface library and implementation library associated with implementation library linked (either static or dynamic). Management service update implementation library after checking registry that the implementation library is not in use.)
once the update has completed, setting the updated default version of the environment library to active;(c3: 33-45, discloses check if implementation library is ready to handle the change…it is swapped out for its the new version) and
deleting the ephemeral version of the environment library. (c7:36-60, discloses library deleted after update to the library)
Saboff does not, however Golde discloses
creating an ephemeral version of the environment library by copying the default version of the environment library, and setting the ephemeral version of the environment library to active; ([0029], discloses copying the target file into a temporary file ) setting the default version of the environment library to offline, and updating the default version of the environment library; ([0079], disclose changing pointer to target file or temporary file, where pointer changes the active or inactive status. When a pointer is set to point to a file it is active, otherwise it is offline.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Golde into the teachings of Saboff to include the limitation disclosed by Golde. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to prevent data damage during update to target file as suggested by Golde ([0008])
Saboff/Golde does not disclose, however, Yao discloses
The system is mainframe system ([0047], discloses computer system includes mainframe system [0023], update to shared library)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Yao into the teachings of Saboff/Golde to include the limitation disclosed by Yao. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art want to ensure library where applications depend on is updated as suggested by Yao ([0004])
Per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Saboff/Golde/Yao
wherein the default version of the environment library comprises a first precompiled set of commands that is configured to support the execution of one or more applications prior to the default version of the environment library being updated, and, optionally, wherein, the ephemeral version of the environment library comprises the first precompiled set of commands that is configured to support the execution of one or more applications. (Saboff, c4:39-55, discloses function call corresponding to commands, the functions in the library are pre-compiled.)
Per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated.
Saboff/Golde/Yao
wherein updating the default version of the environment library comprises generating a second precompiled set of commands, wherein the updated default version of the environment library comprises the second precompiled set of commands that is configured to support the execution of one or more applications. (Saboff, c4:39-55, discloses function call corresponding to commands, the functions in the library are pre-compiled, where updated library includes new functions corresponds to second precompiled set of commands.)
Per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated.
Saboff/Golde/Yao
wherein setting the updated default version of the environment library to active comprises reconfiguring the mainframe system to use the second precompiled set of commands instead of the first precompiled set of commands. (Saboff, c6: 1-5, discloses invoking library management service … see update to new version of library corresponding to the second precompiled set of commands)
Per claim 5, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated.
Saboff/Golde/Yao discloses
wherein supporting the execution of one or more applications comprises accessing data stored in one or more databases. (Yao, disclose Database application, [0058])
Per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 incorporated.
Saboff/Golde/Yao discloses
wherein the method comprises at least one mainframe system downtime period, and, optionally, wherein the at least one mainframe system downtime period comprises a first mainframe system downtime period, wherein the first mainframe system downtime period begins prior to both the ephemeral version of the environment library being set to active and the default version of the environment library being set to offline, and ends after both the ephemeral version of the environment library is set to active and the default version of the environment library is set to offline. (Saboff, c1:10-25, discloses updating results in downtime, corresponding to system downtime period. The limitation after “optionally” is optional. Yao, [0058], see mainframes.)
Per claims 18-20, see rejection of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcoming issues identified in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip Wang whose telephone number is 571-272-5934. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:00AM -4:00PM. Any inquiry of general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC2100 Group receptionist: 571-272-2100.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lewis Bullock, can be reached at 571-272-3759. 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).
/PHILIP WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights