DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the application filed 23 August 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending 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.
Claims 1, 2, 7-9 and 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. When considering claims 1-20 as a whole and all claim elements both individually and in combination, these claim(s) 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of scheduling system maintenance operations without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (from the MPEP 2106.05(a)), claim(s) (1-18) is/are directed to a method, claim(s) (19) is/ are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, and claims(s) (20) is/are directed to a system and therefore the claims are viewed as falling in statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1
The claimed invention recites a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea. The claim(s) recite(s) mental process as it pertains to the scheduling of maintenance operations excluding, but not related to directing people so while some argument can be made to direct the rejection to organizing human activity the Examiner is focusing on the collection of data analysis of data and displaying of specific results of the analysis. Specifically, the independent claims 1, 19, and 20 are a mental process: as drafted, the claim recites the limitation of scheduling system maintenance operations which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the by a processor language, the claim encompasses the user manually:
receiving a first request to execute a first system maintenance operation within a first time period;
selecting a first plurality of candidate execution times within the first time period for execution of the first system maintenance operation;
executing a hash function on a first attribute associated with the first request to select a first execution time within the first plurality of candidate execution times;
scheduling the execution of the first system maintenance operation at the first execution time;
wherein the method is performed by at least one device including a hardware processor.
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. It has been established by ongoing guidance that claims that contain a generic processor are still viewed as mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, however this is different for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations (network monitoring, data encryption for communication, and rendering images). Therefore, these limitations are viewed a mental process.
The scheduling the execution of the first system maintenance operation would clearly be to a mental activity that a company would go through in order to decide how to schedule maintenance. The specification makes it clear that the claimed invention is directed to the mental activity data gathering and data analysis to determine how to schedule the execution of a maintenance operation:
Step 2A Prong 2
Specifically the determined judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and additionally that the data receiving, selecting, and executing steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity (including post solution activity).
The claim recites the additional element(s): that a processor is used to perform the scheduling the execution of the first system maintenance operation; The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data (generating workflows). This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional element(s): receiving a first request, selecting a first plurality of candidates, and executing a hash function performs the scheduling step. The receiving, selecting, and executing steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving, selecting and executing data for use in the scheduling step), and amounts to mere data management, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor that performs the scheduling step is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the scheduling step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor).
The Examiner has further determined that the claims as a whole does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application in order to provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. It has been determined that based on the disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. It has not been provided clearly in the disclosure that the alleged improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, but is instead in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore does not improve the technology. Second, in the instance, where it is not clear that the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must reflect the disclosed improvement (the claims must include components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification).
For further clarification the Examiner points out that the claim(s) 1, 19, and 20 recite(s) receiving a first request, selecting first plurality of candidate execution times, executing a hash function, and scheduling the execution which are viewed as an abstract idea in the form of a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of a computer for receiving, selecting, executing, and scheduling which is the abstract idea steps of valuing an idea (scheduling system maintenance operations) in the manner of “apply it”.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea directed to a mental process (i.e. to tracking and status analysis of electronic devices). Using a computer to receive, select, execute, and schedule the execution of the first maintenance operation resulting from this kind of mental process merely implements the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it”.
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’.
The dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, and 14-17 recite limitations which further limit the claimed analysis of data.
Claims 12 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed insignificantly extra solution activity.
Using a computer to perform the data processing as claimed is merely implementing the abstract idea in the manner of “apply it” and does not provide significantly more. Additionally with respect to the Berkheimer the Examiner points out that the steps of the claim are viewed to be to nothing more than spell out what it means to apply it on a computer and cannot confer patent-eligibility as there are no additional limitations beyond applying an abstract idea, restricted to a computer. As the claims are merely implementing the abstract idea in the manner of “Apply It” the need for a Berkheimer analysis does not apply and is not required. With respect to the currently filed claims the implementing steps can be found in Heninger which discloses how the claims alone and in combination are viewed to be well understood, routine and conventional based on point 3 of the Berkheimer memo and subsequent evidence, complying with and providing evidence.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, and 18 recites limitations directed to claim language viewed non-functional data labels.
Thus, the problem the claimed invention is directed to answering the question based on scheduling system maintenance operation. This is not a technical or technological problem but is rather in the realm of scheduling and therefore an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. This is the case because in order for the claims to be viewed as significantly more the claims must incorporate the integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly. Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful e limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more. Additionally, another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more is whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. "[T]ransformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines. All together the above analysis shows there is not improvement in computer functionality, or improvement to any other technology or technical field. The claim is ineligible.
Additionally, with respect to the Berkheimer as noted above the same analysis applies to the 2B where the claims are viewed as applying it and as such no further analysis is required. However, with respect to the current claims receiving, selecting, and executing that are viewed as extra solution or post solution activity the Examiner notes that the claims are viewed as well-understood, routine, and conventional because a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). An appropriate publication such as the currently cited prior art “Heninger et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0258539 A1” provides those extra solution activities and is viewed as a form of publication which also includes a book, manual, review article, or other source that describes the state of the art and discusses what is well-known and in common use in the relevant industry. The claim is ineligible.
The dependent claims recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’. Specifically, the dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies of the independent 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 may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1, 7-10, and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heninger et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0258539 A1) (hereafter Heninger) in view of Bharathi (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0294655 A1) in further view of Gantayat et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0184653 A1) (hereafter Gantayat).
Referring to Claim 1, Heninger teaches a method comprising:
receiving a first request to execute a first system maintenance operation within a first time period (see; par. [0063] of Heninger teaches receiving a request to a system maintenance for a scheduled period of time).
scheduling the execution of the first system maintenance operation at the first execution time (see; par. [0073] of Heninger teaches the scheduling of maintenance operation at a specific time (i.e. execution time)).
wherein the method is performed by at least one device including a hardware processor (see; par. [0040] of Heninger teaches the use of a processor to perform the scheduling of maintenance operations).
Heninger does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however,
Bharathi teaches executing a hash function on a first attribute associated with the first request to select a first execution time within the first plurality of candidate execution times (see; par. 3 of Bharathi teaches the execution of a hash function that is related to an attributes and based on execution times).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger fails to disclose executing a hash function on a first attribute associated with the first request to select a first execution time within the first plurality of candidate execution times.
Bharathi discloses executing a hash function on a first attribute associated with the first request to select a first execution time within the first plurality of candidate execution times.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger the executing a hash function on a first attribute associated with the first request to select a first execution time within the first plurality of candidate execution times as taught by Bharathi 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, and Bharathi teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Heninger in view of Bharathi does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Gantayat teaches selecting a first plurality of candidate execution times within the first time period for execution of the first system maintenance operation (see; par. [0047] of Gantayat teaches constraint based scheduling dynamically determining downtime for specific duration, par. [0019] determined for an optimal scheduling of the maintenance operation).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Gantayat teaches scheduling computer system maintenance and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger and Bharathi which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger and Bharathi discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger and Bharathi fails to disclose selecting a first plurality of candidate execution times within the first time period for execution of the first system maintenance operation.
Gantayat discloses selecting a first plurality of candidate execution times within the first time period for execution of the first system maintenance operation.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger selecting a first plurality of candidate execution times within the first time period for execution of the first system maintenance operation as taught by Gantayat 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 7, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat teaches the method above, Heninger further discloses a method having the limitations of,
the first attribute comprises an identifier associated with the first request (see; par. [0006] of Heninger teaches as part of the analysis identify classes of hardware (i.e. attribute as an identifier) related to a request).
Referring to Claim 8, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat teaches the method above, Heninger further discloses a method having the limitations of,
wherein the first time period comprises a user-specified time period (see; par. [0063] of Heninger teaches a specified time (i.e. time period for maintenance).
Referring to Claim 9, see discussion of claim 8 above, while Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat teaches the method above, Heninger in view of Bharathi does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Gantayat teaches determining a plurality of available execution times within the first time period (see; par. [0019] of Gantayat teaches taking into account availability (i.e. time) to maximize IT maintenance properties), and
selecting the plurality of available execution times as the first plurality of candidate execution times (see; par. [0019] of Gantayat teaches taking into account availability (i.e. time) to maximize IT maintenance properties, taking into account resource availability and scheduled maintenance to execute to maximize the availability and maintenance schedule).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Gantayat teaches scheduling computer system maintenance and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger and Bharathi which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger and Bharathi discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger and Bharathi fails to disclose determining a plurality of available execution times within the first time period and selecting the plurality of available execution times as the first plurality of candidate execution times.
Gantayat discloses determining a plurality of available execution times within the first time period and selecting the plurality of available execution times as the first plurality of candidate execution times.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger and Bharathi determining a plurality of available execution times within the first time period and selecting the plurality of available execution times as the first plurality of candidate execution times as taught by Gantayat 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 10, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat teaches the method above, Heninger further discloses a method having the limitations of,
receiving a second request to execute a second system maintenance operation within a second time period (see; par. [0063] of Heninger teaches receiving a request to a system maintenance for a scheduled period of time).
scheduling the execution of the second system maintenance operation at the third execution time (see; par. [0073] of Heninger teaches the scheduling one of many maintenance operations, par. [0006] at a specified time).
Heninger does not explicitly disclose the following noted limitations, however,
Bharathi teaches executing the hash function on a second attribute associated with the second request to select a second execution time within the second plurality of candidate execution times (see; par. [0003] of Bharathi teaches the execution of a hash function that is related to an attributes and based on execution times), and
responsive to determining the resource constraint: executing the hash function on a third attribute associated with the second request to select a third execution time within the second plurality of candidate execution times (see; par. [0003 of Bharathi teaches performing a hash function, par. [0005] for different execution times (i.e. second execution times)).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger fails to disclose executing the hash function on a second attribute associated with the second request to select a second execution time within the second plurality of candidate execution times, and responsive to determining the resource constraint: executing the hash function on a third attribute associated with the second request to select a third execution time within the second plurality of candidate execution times.
Bharathi discloses executing the hash function on a second attribute associated with the second request to select a second execution time within the second plurality of candidate execution times, and responsive to determining the resource constraint: executing the hash function on a third attribute associated with the second request to select a third execution time within the second plurality of candidate execution times.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger executing the hash function on a second attribute associated with the second request to select a second execution time within the second plurality of candidate execution times, and responsive to determining the resource constraint: executing the hash function on a third attribute associated with the second request to select a third execution time within the second plurality of candidate execution times as taught by Bharathi 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, and Bharathi teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Heninger in view of Bharathi does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however,
Gantayat teaches selecting a second plurality of candidate execution times within the second time period for execution of the second system maintenance operation (see; par. [0047] of Gantayat teaches constraint-based scheduling dynamically determining downtime for specific duration, par. [0019] determined for an optimal scheduling of the maintenance operation, par. [0005] at a different time), and
determining a resource constraint between execution of the first system maintenance operation at the first execution time and execution of the second system maintenance operation at the second execution time (see; par. [0046] of Gantayat teaches constraint based scheduler needs to determine the constraint in order to provide IT maintenance).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Gantayat teaches scheduling computer system maintenance and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger and Bharathi which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger and Bharathi discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger and Bharathi fails to disclose selecting a second plurality of candidate execution times within the second time period for execution of the second system maintenance operation, and determining a resource constraint between execution of the first system maintenance operation at the first execution time and execution of the second system maintenance operation at the second execution time.
Gantayat discloses selecting a second plurality of candidate execution times within the second time period for execution of the second system maintenance operation, and determining a resource constraint between execution of the first system maintenance operation at the first execution time and execution of the second system maintenance operation at the second execution time.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger and Bharathi selecting a second plurality of candidate execution times within the second time period for execution of the second system maintenance operation, and determining a resource constraint between execution of the first system maintenance operation at the first execution time and execution of the second system maintenance operation at the second execution time as taught by Gantayat 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 12, see discussion of claim 10 above, while Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat teaches the method above, Heninger further discloses a method having the limitations of,
Bharathi teaches executing the hash function on a fourth attribute associated with the first request to select a fourth execution time within the first plurality of candidate execution times (see; par. [0003] of Bharathi teaches executing a has function, par. [0019] determined for an optimal scheduling of the maintenance operation, par. [0005] as well as a second request at a different time).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger fails to disclose executing the hash function on a fourth attribute associated with the first request to select a fourth execution time within the first plurality of candidate execution times.
Bharathi discloses executing the hash function on a fourth attribute associated with the first request to select a fourth execution time within the first plurality of candidate execution times.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger executing the hash function on a fourth attribute associated with the first request to select a fourth execution time within the first plurality of candidate execution times as taught by Bharathi 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, and Bharathi teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Heninger in view of Bharathi does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Gantayat teaches rescheduling the execution of the first system maintenance operation from the first execution time to the fourth execution time (see; par. [0073] of Heninger teaches scheduling maintenance operations for a specific time, par. [0047] where there is a dynamic determination of downtime windows (i.e. fourth execution time)).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Gantayat teaches scheduling computer system maintenance and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger and Bharathi which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger and Bharathi discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger and Bharathi fails to disclose rescheduling the execution of the first system maintenance operation from the first execution time to the fourth execution time.
Gantayat discloses rescheduling the execution of the first system maintenance operation from the first execution time to the fourth execution time.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger and Bharathi rescheduling the execution of the first system maintenance operation from the first execution time to the fourth execution time as taught by Gantayat 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 13, see discussion of claim 10 above, while Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat teaches the method above, Heninger in view of Bharathi does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Gantayat teaches the resource constraint comprises a resource constraint associated with the execution of at least one of: the first system maintenance operation, or the second system maintenance operation (see; par. [0003] of Gantayat teaches resource constraints associated with scheduling IT maintenance, par. [0023] based on dynamically determining downtime).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Gantayat teaches scheduling computer system maintenance and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger and Bharathi which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger and Bharathi discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger and Bharathi fails to disclose the resource constraint comprises a resource constraint associated with the execution of at least one of: the first system maintenance operation, or the second system maintenance operation.
Gantayat discloses the resource constraint comprises a resource constraint associated with the execution of at least one of: the first system maintenance operation, or the second system maintenance operation.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger and Bharathi the resource constraint comprises a resource constraint associated with the execution of at least one of: the first system maintenance operation, or the second system maintenance operation as taught by Gantayat 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 14, see discussion of claim 10 above, while Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat teaches the method above, Heninger in view of Bharathi does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Gantayat teaches comparing a resource utilization threshold to a resource allocation for execution of at least one of: the first system maintenance operation, or the second system maintenance operation (see; par. [0019] of Gantayat teaches monitoring resource utilization in order to maximize the availability to maximize resource and priorities), and
determining that the resource allocation meets the resource utilization threshold; determining the resource constraint based on the resource allocation meeting the resource utilization threshold (see; par. [0046]-[0047] of Gantayat teaches determining an IT maintenance schedule based on resource constraints that are determined).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Gantayat teaches scheduling computer system maintenance and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger and Bharathi which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger and Bharathi discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger and Bharathi fails to disclose comparing a resource utilization threshold to a resource allocation for execution of at least one of: the first system maintenance operation, or the second system maintenance operation and determining that the resource allocation meets the resource utilization threshold; determining the resource constraint based on the resource allocation meeting the resource utilization threshold.
Gantayat discloses comparing a resource utilization threshold to a resource allocation for execution of at least one of: the first system maintenance operation, or the second system maintenance operation and determining that the resource allocation meets the resource utilization threshold; determining the resource constraint based on the resource allocation meeting the resource utilization threshold.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger and Bharathi the comparing a resource utilization threshold to a resource allocation for execution of at least one of: the first system maintenance operation, or the second system maintenance operation and determining that the resource allocation meets the resource utilization threshold; determining the resource constraint based on the resource allocation meeting the resource utilization threshold as taught by Gantayat 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 15, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat teaches the method above, Heninger teaches a method having the limitations of, however,
receiving a second request to execute a second system maintenance operation within a second time period (see; par. [0063] of Heninger teaches receiving a request for one of multiple maintenance operation for a designated time).
Henninger does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Bharathi teaches executing the hash function on a second attribute associated with the second request to select a second execution time within the second plurality of candidate execution times (see; par. [0003] of Bharathi teaches executing a has function, par. [0019] determined for an optimal scheduling of the maintenance operation, par. [0005] as well as a second request at a different time).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger fails to disclose executing the hash function on a second attribute associated with the second request to select a second execution time within the second plurality of candidate execution times.
Bharathi discloses executing the hash function on a second attribute associated with the second request to select a second execution time within the second plurality of candidate execution times.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger executing the hash function on a second attribute associated with the second request to select a second execution time within the second plurality of candidate execution times as taught by Bharathi 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, and Bharathi teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Henninger in view of Bharathi does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Gantayat teaches selecting a second plurality of candidate execution times within the second time period for execution of the second system maintenance operation (see; par. [0047] of Gantayat teaches constraint-based scheduling dynamically determining downtime for specific duration, par. [0019] determined for an optimal scheduling of the maintenance operation, par. [0005] at a different time), and
determining a resource constraint between execution of the first system maintenance operation at the first execution time and execution of the second system maintenance operation at the second execution time (see; par. [0046] of Gantayat teaches constraint based scheduler needs to determine the constraint in order to provide IT maintenance), and
responsive to determining the resource constraint: scheduling the execution of the second system maintenance operation at the second execution time (see; Abstract of Gantayat teaches a time prediction model used to schedule maintenance), and
scheduling additional resources for at least one of: execution of the first system maintenance operation at the first execution time, or execution of the second system maintenance operation at the second execution time (see; par. [0047] of Gantayat teaches scheduling additional resources so as to schedule IT maintenance).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Gantayat teaches scheduling computer system maintenance and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger and Bharathi which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger and Bharathi discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger and Bharathi fails to disclose selecting a second plurality of candidate execution times within the second time period for execution of the second system maintenance operation, determining a resource constraint between execution of the first system maintenance operation at the first execution time and execution of the second system maintenance operation at the second execution time, responsive to determining the resource constraint: scheduling the execution of the second system maintenance operation at the second execution time, and scheduling additional resources for at least one of: execution of the first system maintenance operation at the first execution time, or execution of the second system maintenance operation at the second execution time.
Gantayat discloses selecting a second plurality of candidate execution times within the second time period for execution of the second system maintenance operation, determining a resource constraint between execution of the first system maintenance operation at the first execution time and execution of the second system maintenance operation at the second execution time, responsive to determining the resource constraint: scheduling the execution of the second system maintenance operation at the second execution time, and scheduling additional resources for at least one of: execution of the first system maintenance operation at the first execution time, or execution of the second system maintenance operation at the second execution time.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger and Bharathi selecting a second plurality of candidate execution times within the second time period for execution of the second system maintenance operation, determining a resource constraint between execution of the first system maintenance operation at the first execution time and execution of the second system maintenance operation at the second execution time, responsive to determining the resource constraint: scheduling the execution of the second system maintenance operation at the second execution time, and scheduling additional resources for at least one of: execution of the first system maintenance operation at the first execution time, or execution of the second system maintenance operation at the second execution time as taught by Gantayat 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 16, see discussion of claim 10 above, while Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat teaches the method above, Heninger does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Bharathi teaches executing the hash function on a second attribute associated with the first request to select a second execution time (see; par. [0003] of Bharathi teaches executing a has function, par. [0019] determined for an optimal scheduling of the maintenance operation, par. [0005] as well as a second request at a different time).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger fails to disclose executing the hash function on a second attribute associated with the first request to select a second execution time.
Bharathi discloses executing the hash function on a second attribute associated with the first request to select a second execution time.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger executing the hash function on a second attribute associated with the first request to select a second execution time as taught by Bharathi 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, and Bharathi teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Heninger in view of Bharathi does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Gantayat teaches determining a resource underutilization period coinciding with at least a portion of the first plurality of candidate execution times exclusive of the first execution time (see; par. [0023] of Gantayat teaches understanding timeframe where there is downtime (i.e. underutilization) which can be used for maintenance to minimize the downtime), and
coinciding with the resource underutilization period responsive to determining the resource underutilization period: (see; par. [0023] of Gantayat teaches determining underutilization), and
rescheduling the execution of the first system maintenance operation from the first execution time to the second execution time (see; par. [0061] of Gantayat teaches an example of adjusting a schedule related to maintenance operation to a different time).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Gantayat teaches scheduling computer system maintenance and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger and Bharathi which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger and Bharathi discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger and Bharathi fails to disclose determining a resource underutilization period coinciding with at least a portion of the first plurality of candidate execution times exclusive of the first execution time, coinciding with the resource underutilization period responsive to determining the resource underutilization period and rescheduling the execution of the first system maintenance operation from the first execution time to the second execution time.
Gantayat discloses determining a resource underutilization period coinciding with at least a portion of the first plurality of candidate execution times exclusive of the first execution time, coinciding with the resource underutilization period responsive to determining the resource underutilization period and rescheduling the execution of the first system maintenance operation from the first execution time to the second execution time.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger and Bharathi determining a resource underutilization period coinciding with at least a portion of the first plurality of candidate execution times exclusive of the first execution time, coinciding with the resource underutilization period responsive to determining the resource underutilization period and rescheduling the execution of the first system maintenance operation from the first execution time to the second execution time as taught by Gantayat 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 17, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat teaches the method above, Heninger does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Bharathi teaches executing a first hash function on the first attribute to select a first time-value at a first time-granularity (see; par. [0003] of Bharathi teaches executing a has function, par. [0019] determined for an optimal scheduling of the maintenance operation) and
executing a second hash function on a second attribute associated with the first request to select a second time-value at a second time-granularity (see; par. [0003] of Bharathi teaches executing a has function, par. [0019] determined for an optimal scheduling of the maintenance operation, par. [0005] as well as a second request at a different time)
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger fails to disclose executing the hash function on a second attribute associated with the first request to select a second execution time.
Bharathi discloses executing the hash function on a second attribute associated with the first request to select a second execution time.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger executing the hash function on a second attribute associated with the first request to select a second execution time as taught by Bharathi 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, and Bharathi teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Heninger in view of Bharathi does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Gantayat teaches determining the first execution time at least by combining the first time-value with the second time-value (see; par. [0061] of Gantayat teaches an example of adjusting schedule, par. [0047] and taking into account multiple task times (1st & 2nd time value)).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Gantayat teaches scheduling computer system maintenance and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger and Bharathi which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger and Bharathi discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger and Bharathi fails to disclose determining the first execution time at least by combining the first time-value with the second time-value.
Gantayat discloses determining the first execution time at least by combining the first time-value with the second time-value.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger and Bharathi determining the first execution time at least by combining the first time-value with the second time-value as taught by Gantayat 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 18, see discussion of claim 17 above, while Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat teaches the method above, Heninger in view of Bharathi does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Gantayat teaches the first time-granularity comprises a date, wherein the second time-granularity comprises a time, and wherein the first execution time comprises the date and the time (see; par. [0004] of Gantayat teaches a determined downtime windows which is viewed to provide a time and date from IT maintenance).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Gantayat teaches scheduling computer system maintenance and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger and Bharathi which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger and Bharathi discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger and Bharathi fails to disclose the first time-granularity comprises a date, wherein the second time-granularity comprises a time, and wherein the first execution time comprises the date and the time.
Gantayat discloses the first time-granularity comprises a date, wherein the second time-granularity comprises a time, and wherein the first execution time comprises the date and the time.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger and Bharathi the first time-granularity comprises a date, wherein the second time-granularity comprises a time, and wherein the first execution time comprises the date and the time as taught by Gantayat 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 19, Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat teaches one or more non-transitory computer readable medium. Claim 19 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1, Claim 19 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1.
Referring to Claim 20, Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat teaches a system comprising. Claim 20 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1, Claim 20 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 2-6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heninger et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0258539 A1) (hereafter Heninger) in view of Bharathi (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0294655 A1) in further view of Gantayat et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0184653 A1) (hereafter Gantayat) in further view of RADIZI (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0177081 A1) (hereafter Radizi).
Referring to Claim 2, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat teaches the method above, Heninger further discloses a method having the limitations of:
receiving a second request to re-execute the first system maintenance operation within a second time period (see; par. [0063] of Heninger teaches receiving a request to a system maintenance for a scheduled period of time).
scheduling the re-execution of the first system maintenance operation at the second execution time (see; par. [0073] of Heninger teaches the scheduling one of many maintenance operations, par. [0006] at a specified time).
Henninger does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however,
Bharathi teaches executing the hash function on a second attribute associated with the second request to select a second execution time within the second plurality of candidate execution times (see; par. [0003] of Bharathi teaches the execution of a hash function that is related to an attributes and based on execution times).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger fails to disclose executing the hash function on a second attribute associated with the second request to select a second execution time within the second plurality of candidate execution times.
Bharathi discloses executing the hash function on a second attribute associated with the second request to select a second execution time within the second plurality of candidate execution times.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger executing the hash function on a second attribute associated with the second request to select a second execution time within the second plurality of candidate execution times as taught by Bharathi 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, and Bharathi teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Heninger in view of Bharathi does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however,
Gantayat teaches selecting a second plurality of candidate execution times within the second time period for re-execution of the first system maintenance operation (see; par. [0047] of Gantayat teaches constraint-based scheduling dynamically determining downtime for specific duration, par. [0019] determined for an optimal scheduling of the maintenance operation, par. [0005] at a different time).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Gantayat teaches scheduling computer system maintenance and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger and Bharathi which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger and Bharathi discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger and Bharathi fails to disclose selecting a second plurality of candidate execution times within the second time period for re-execution of the first system maintenance operation.
Gantayat discloses selecting a second plurality of candidate execution times within the second time period for re-execution of the first system maintenance operation.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger and Bharathi selecting a second plurality of candidate execution times within the second time period for re-execution of the first system maintenance operation as taught by Gantayat 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however,
Radizi teaches wherein the first attribute and the second attribute are similar or identical (see; par. [0055] of Raidzi teaches identical attributes), and
wherein the first execution time and the second execution time correspond to (a) a same time of day, (b) a same day of week, (c) a same day of month, and/or (d) a same day of year (see; par. [0014] of Radizi teaches the execution time as the same data).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Gantayat teaches scheduling computer system maintenance and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger and Bharathi which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Radizi teaches storing and retrieving media as an object for use in and handling hash metadata for maintenance components and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat fails to disclose wherein the first attribute and the second attribute are similar or identical and wherein the first execution time and the second execution time correspond to (a) a same time of day, (b) a same day of week, (c) a same day of month, and/or (d) a same day of year).
Radizi discloses wherein the first attribute and the second attribute are similar or identical and wherein the first execution time and the second execution time correspond to (a) a same time of day, (b) a same day of week, (c) a same day of month, and/or (d) a same day of year).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat selecting a second plurality of candidate execution times within the second time period for re-execution of the first system maintenance operation as taught by Radizi 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, Bharathi, Gantayat, and Radizi teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 3, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat teaches the method above, Heninger further discloses a method having the limitations of:
receiving a second request to execute a second system maintenance operation within a second time period, wherein the second system maintenance operation shares one or more attributes with the first system maintenance operation (see; par. [0063] of Heninger teaches receiving a request to a system maintenance for a scheduled period of time, par. [0019] taking into account shared resources (i.e. attributes)).
scheduling the execution of the second system maintenance operation at the second execution time (see; par. [0073] of Heninger teaches the scheduling one of many maintenance operations, par. [0006] at a specified time).
Heninger does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however,
Bharathi teaches executing the hash function on a second attribute associated with the second request to select a second execution time within the second plurality of candidate execution times (see; par. [0003] of Bharathi teaches executing a has function, par. [0019] determined for an optimal scheduling of the maintenance operation, par. [0005] as well as a second request at a different time).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger fails to disclose executing the hash function on a second attribute associated with the second request to select a second execution time within the second plurality of candidate execution times.
Bharathi discloses executing the hash function on a second attribute associated with the second request to select a second execution time within the second plurality of candidate execution times.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger executing the hash function on a second attribute associated with the second request to select a second execution time within the second plurality of candidate execution times as taught by Bharathi 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, and Bharathi teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Heninger in view of Bharathi does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however,
Gantayat teaches selecting a second plurality of candidate execution times within the second time period for execution of the second system maintenance operation (see; par. [0047] of Gantayat teaches constraint-based scheduling dynamically determining downtime for specific duration, par. [0019] determined for an optimal scheduling of the maintenance operation, par. [0005] at a different time).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Gantayat teaches scheduling computer system maintenance and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger and Bharathi which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger and Bharathi discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger and Bharathi fails to disclose selecting a second plurality of candidate execution times within the second time period for execution of the second system maintenance operation n.
Gantayat discloses selecting a second plurality of candidate execution times within the second time period for execution of the second system maintenance operation.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger and Bharathi s selecting a second plurality of candidate execution times within the second time period for execution of the second system maintenance operation as taught by Gantayat 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however,
Radizi teaches wherein the first attribute and the second attribute are similar or identical (see; par. [0055] of Radizi teaches the attributes are the same), and
wherein the first execution time and the second execution time correspond to at least one of: (a) a same time of day, (b) a same day of week, (c) a same day of month, (d) a same day of year, or (e) a same time period (see; par. [0014] of Radizi teaches the execution time as the same data).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Gantayat teaches scheduling computer system maintenance and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger and Bharathi which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Radizi teaches storing and retrieving media as an object for use in and handling hash metadata for maintenance components and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat fails to disclose wherein the first attribute and the second attribute are similar or identical, and wherein the first execution time and the second execution time correspond to at least one of: (a) a same time of day, (b) a same day of week, (c) a same day of month, (d) a same day of year, or (e) a same time period.
Radizi discloses wherein the first attribute and the second attribute are similar or identical, and wherein the first execution time and the second execution time correspond to at least one of: (a) a same time of day, (b) a same day of week, (c) a same day of month, (d) a same day of year, or (e) a same time period.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat wherein the first attribute and the second attribute are similar or identical, and wherein the first execution time and the second execution time correspond to at least one of: (a) a same time of day, (b) a same day of week, (c) a same day of month, (d) a same day of year, or (e) a same time period as taught by Radizi 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, Bharathi, Gantayat, and Radizi teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 4, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat teaches the method above, Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Radizi teaches executing the hash function to select execution times results in similar or identical maintenance operations being scheduled at (a) a same time of day, (b) a same day of week, (c) a same day of month, (d) a same day of year, and/or (e) a same time period (see; Abstract of Raizi teaches the use of a hash function data, par. [0009] to execute based on time factors, including execution time constraints, par. [0014] same date).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Gantayat teaches scheduling computer system maintenance and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger and Bharathi which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Radizi teaches storing and retrieving media as an object for use in and handling hash metadata for maintenance components and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat fails to disclose executing the hash function to select execution times results in similar or identical maintenance operations being scheduled at (a) a same time of day, (b) a same day of week, (c) a same day of month, (d) a same day of year, and/or (e) a same time period.
Radizi discloses executing the hash function to select execution times results in similar or identical maintenance operations being scheduled at (a) a same time of day, (b) a same day of week, (c) a same day of month, (d) a same day of year, and/or (e) a same time period.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat executing the hash function to select execution times results in similar or identical maintenance operations being scheduled at (a) a same time of day, (b) a same day of week, (c) a same day of month, (d) a same day of year, and/or (e) a same time period as taught by Radizi 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, Bharathi, Gantayat, and Radizi teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 5, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat teaches the method above, Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Radizi teaches the first plurality of candidate execution times is selected within the first time period based at least in part on other system maintenance operations that have already been scheduled during the first time period (see; par. [0009] of Radizi teaches scheduling maintenance during low computation load times (i.e. second time period)).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Gantayat teaches scheduling computer system maintenance and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger and Bharathi which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Radizi teaches storing and retrieving media as an object for use in and handling hash metadata for maintenance components and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat fails to disclose the first plurality of candidate execution times is selected within the first time period based at least in part on other system maintenance operations that have already been scheduled during the first time period.
Radizi discloses the first plurality of candidate execution times is selected within the first time period based at least in part on other system maintenance operations that have already been scheduled during the first time period.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat the first plurality of candidate execution times is selected within the first time period based at least in part on other system maintenance operations that have already been scheduled during the first time period as taught by Radizi 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, Bharathi, Gantayat, and Radizi teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 6, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat teaches the method above, Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Radizi teaches based at least in part on the first execution time: determining a schedule for (a) additional executions of the first system maintenance operation, or (b) executions of other system maintenance operations in a same category as the first system maintenance operation (see; par. [0009] of Radizi teaches scheduling maintenance during low computation load times (i.e. additional executions of the system maintenance operation)).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Gantayat teaches scheduling computer system maintenance and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger and Bharathi which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Radizi teaches storing and retrieving media as an object for use in and handling hash metadata for maintenance components and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat fails to disclose based at least in part on the first execution time: determining a schedule for (a) additional executions of the first system maintenance operation, or (b) executions of other system maintenance operations in a same category as the first system maintenance operation.
Radizi discloses based at least in part on the first execution time: determining a schedule for (a) additional executions of the first system maintenance operation, or (b) executions of other system maintenance operations in a same category as the first system maintenance operation.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat based at least in part on the first execution time: determining a schedule for (a) additional executions of the first system maintenance operation, or (b) executions of other system maintenance operations in a same category as the first system maintenance operation as taught by Radizi 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, Bharathi, Gantayat, and Radizi teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 11, see discussion of claim 10 above, while Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat teaches the method above, Heninger in view of Bharathi in further view of Gantayat does not explicitly disclose a method having the limitations of, however,
Radizi teaches the third attribute comprises a combination of the second attribute and a salt parameter (see; par. [0040] of Radizi teaches meta data from a different attribute (i.e. third) and a salt cryptographic parameter).
The Examiner notes that Heninger teaches similar to the instant application teaches minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations. Specifically, Heninger discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Bharathi teaches prioritizing the execution of analytical models taking into account execution time and using hash functions and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Gantayat teaches scheduling computer system maintenance and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger and Bharathi which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Radizi teaches storing and retrieving media as an object for use in and handling hash metadata for maintenance components and as it is comparable in certain respects to Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat which minimizing workload migration during cloud maintenance operations as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat discloses the evaluate the requirements of the maintenance packages and dependences associated with the scheduled maintenance operations. However, Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat fails to disclose the third attribute comprises a combination of the second attribute and a salt parameter.
Radizi discloses the third attribute comprises a combination of the second attribute and a salt parameter.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Heninger, Bharathi, and Gantayat the third attribute comprises a combination of the second attribute and a salt parameter as taught by Radizi 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Heninger, Bharathi, Gantayat, and Radizi teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to schedule system maintenance and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Guo et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0345574 A1) discloses a predictive system maintenance model based on machine learning.
Kruempelmann et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0192951 A1) discloses a system maintenance status controller.
Mitchell et al. (U.S. Patent 10,970,159 B1) discloses an automated system maintenance capabilities for a computing system.
Else et al. (U.S. Patent 10,877,801 B2) discloses systems and method of scheduling tasks.
Kuchibhotla et al. (U.S. Patent 10,542,100 B2) discloses systems and methodologies for defining and scheduling custom actions as cloud operations.
Laethem (U.S. Patent 10,482,072 B2) discloses cloud-based platform instrumentation and monitoring system for maintenance of user-configured programs.
Baker et al. (U.S. Patent 9,552,229) discloses systems and methods for task scheduling
PRABHAKARAN et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0117741 A1) discloses an optimization framework for remotely executing a maintenance operation on a virtual machine.
Carteri et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2009/0282411 A1) discloses scheduling method and system.
Quintus et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0122723 A1) discloses a flexible scheduling of maintenance tasks in a maintenance plan).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 - 6:00.
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, Boswell Beth can be reached at 571 272-6737. 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.
/S.S.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625