DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communication filed on 23 August 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been considered below.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, 11, 15-16 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of prior U.S. Patent No. US12106156B2 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the features recited are included in the corresponding claims of the '156 patent.
It is clear that all the elements of the application claim 1 are to be found in reference patent claims 1 + Claim 3 (as the application claim 1 fully encompasses reference patent claim 1 + claim 3). The difference between the application claim 1 and the reference patent claims 1 and 3 lies in the fact that the reference application claim includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus the invention of claim 1 and claim 3 of the reference patent (claim 3 dependent on claim 1) is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application claim 1. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since application claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of the reference patent, it is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of the reference patent. Please see the correspondence below:
Instant Application ‘249
Reference Patent ‘156
Claim 1.A computer-implemented method, comprising: executing, by a cloud-computing system, a declarative infrastructure provisioner configured to manage provisioning infrastructure resources and deploying artifacts of a cloud computing environment in accordance with a configuration file comprising declarative statements;
executing, by the cloud-computing system and based at least in part on the configuration file, a release at one or more execution targets
corresponding to a phase of a plurality of phases, the release being an infrastructure release or an application release;
and presenting, by the cloud-computing system at a user interface, a visual representation of progress corresponding to the phase,
the visual representation of progress indicating a respective execution status of the infrastructure release at each of the one or more execution targets corresponding to the phase.
Claim 1 + Claim 3
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: executing, by a computing system, a declarative infrastructure provisioner configured to manage provisioning infrastructure resources and deploying artifacts of a cloud computing environment in accordance with a configuration file comprising declarative statements describing one or more infrastructure resources to be provisioned and one or more software artifacts to be deployed to the cloud computing environment;
executing an infrastructure release based at least in part on provisioning, by the computing system, a set of infrastructure components across a first plurality of execution targets based at least in part on a first set of declarative statements of the configuration file;
executing an application release based at least in part on deploying, by the computing system, a set of software artifacts to respective infrastructure components across a second plurality of execution targets based at least in part on a second set of declarative statements of the configuration file; and providing, by the computing system, a user interface presenting: i) a first area presenting first release status corresponding to each execution of a plurality of infrastructure releases comprising the infrastructure release, ii) a second area presenting second release corresponding to each execution of a plurality of application releases comprising the application release, and iii) a third area presenting a first status of executing the infrastructure release at a particular execution target and a second status of executing the application release at the particular execution target, the first area, the second area, and the third area being adjacent to each other and simultaneously visible.
Claim 3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2 further comprising
presenting, by the computing system, a visual representation of progress corresponding to a phase of a plurality of phases, each phase of the plurality of phases being associated with provisioning a respective subset of the set of infrastructure components to a subset of the first plurality of execution targets or deploying a respective subset of the set of software artifacts to a subset of the second plurality of execution targets, the plurality of phases being associated with a predefined order of execution for provisioning to the subset of the first plurality of execution targets or deploying to the subset of the second plurality of execution targets.
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 3
Claim 8
Claim 1 + Claim 3
Claim 9
Claim 3
Claim 11
Claim 3
Claim 15
Claim 1 + claim 3
Claim 16
Claim 3
Claim 17
Claim 3
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-11, 14-15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IYOOB et al. (US20140317166A1) in view of KHAKARE et al. (US20210055917A1) and further in view of KUCHIBHOTLA et al. (US20180083889A1).
As to claim 1, IYOOB teaches:
a computer-implemented method, comprising: executing, by a cloud-computing system, a declarative infrastructure provisioner configured to manage provisioning infrastructure resources and deploying artifacts of a cloud computing environment (See Fig. 1, par. 0018, wherein a cloud services consumer can use a CSB platform configured in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention to provision virtual data centers (VDCs), then find and order services through a single unified web 2.0 interface; to directly access and manage provisioned resources and deploy applications; to track changes through a workflow for technical, legal and financial approvals; wherein see also par,. 0062, to manage provisioned assets (e.g., IaaS, PaaS, SaaS, managed and custom services, asset relationships, asset status and life cycle management, etc.); automated asset discovery & sync (e.g., discover and make changes to assets in the cloud, sync with assets registered in catalog/asset manager, match process enabling the IT Administrator to resolve any discrepancies; as taught by IYOOB)
executing, by the cloud-computing system, a release at one or more execution targets corresponding to a phase of a plurality of phases, the release being an infrastructure release or an application release (See Figs. 10-16, par. 0098 wherein a design solution selector 422 of the Tab Link section 412 links to an application solution designer view of the Applications tab 406 for enabling a user (i.e., cloud service user) to plan cloud resource scenarios by creating one or more applications (i.e., use specific cloud resource configurations) and mapping the one or more applications to different virtual data centers; as taught by IYOOB).
IYOOB does not expressly teach in accordance with a configuration file comprising declarative statements, and based at least in part on the configuration file; and presenting, by the cloud-computing system at a user interface, a visual representation of progress corresponding to the phase, the visual representation of progress indicating a respective execution status of the infrastructure release at each of the one or more execution targets corresponding to the phase.
In similar field of endeavor, KHAKARE teaches in accordance with a configuration file comprising declarative statements, and based at least in part on the configuration file (See par. 0069 wherein cloud deploy software generates IaC code in the form of declarative configuration files (e.g., Terraform code); as taught by KHAKARE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the IYOOB method to include the teachings of KHAKARE in in accordance with a configuration file comprising declarative statements, and based at least in part on the configuration file. Such a person would have been motivated to make this combination as dependency on manual design and creation of scripts is inherently error-prone and also requires a significant amount of time and manual resources (KHAKARE, par. 0004).IYOOB and KHAKARE do not expressly teach and presenting, by the cloud-computing system at a user interface, a visual representation of progress corresponding to the phase, the visual representation of progress indicating a respective execution status of the infrastructure release at each of the one or more execution targets corresponding to the phase.
In similar field of endeavor, KUCHIBHOTLA teaches and presenting, by the cloud-computing system at a user interface, a visual representation of progress corresponding to the phase, the visual representation of progress indicating a respective execution status of the infrastructure release at each of the one or more execution targets corresponding to the phase (see figs. 6-15, par. 0175, wherein FIG. 9B depicts example interface 910 for monitoring active fleet operations in accordance with one or more embodiments. As can be seen, interface 910 displays various information about the active fleet operations including the operation names, the operation types, the creator (i.e., the username of the administrator that created the operation), the operation start time, the operation status, the completion ratio, and the individual operation completion status. The individual operation status indicates how many reserved operations within a fleet operation maintenance window have succeed, how many have failed, and how many are in progress; as taught by KUCHIBHOTLA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the IYOOB and KHAKARE method to include the teachings of KUCHIBHOTLA for presenting, by the cloud-computing system at a user interface, a visual representation of progress corresponding to the phase, the visual representation of progress indicating a respective execution status of the infrastructure release at each of the one or more execution targets corresponding to the phase. Such a person would have been motivated to make this combination as the it is advantageous for the user to monitor the installation state and the progress as at the end other decisions such as user interface modification or update could be effectuated (see also KUCHIBHOTLA, par. 0005).
As to claim 3, IYOOB, KHAKARE and KUCHIBHOTLA teach the limitations of claim 1. KUCHIBHOTLA further teaches wherein the execution status of the release at each of the one or more execution targets is indicated by colorized respective portions of the visual representation (see figs. 9A-9B, par. 00174, wherein the total number of completed and scheduled operations are segmented so that the number of completed/scheduled operations by operations type may also be determined. In the present example, one color (e.g., green) of each bar represents backup operations and a second color (e.g., red) represents patching operations. Chart 904 c depicts the operations on-time performance over the past two weeks. One color on each bar in chart 904 c represents operations that completed on-time, a second color represents operations that completed early, and a third color represents operations that were delayed; as taught by KUCHIBHOTLA).
As to claim 4, IYOOB, KHAKARE and KUCHIBHOTLA teach the limitations of claim 1. IYOOB further teaches:
wherein executing the release at each of the one or more execution targets either 1) provisions one or more infrastructure resources at an execution target of the one or more execution targets or 2) deploys one or more artifacts at the execution target of the one or more execution targets.
(see figs. 1-17, par. 0018, wherein a skilled person will appreciate that a CSB platform configured in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention is a portal arrangement that enables easy-to-use broker capabilities for cloud services, supporting multiple customers and integrating several different providers, allowing a cloud services consumer (i.e., including its cloud services users) to design, order, provision and control cloud services from a single portal. A cloud services consumer can use a CSB platform configured in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention to provision virtual data centers (VDCs), then find and order services through a single unified web 2.0 interface; to directly access and manage provisioned resources and deploy applications; as taught by IYOOB).
As to claim 7, IYOOB, KHAKARE and KUCHIBHOTLA teach the limitations of claim 1. KUCHIBHOTLA further teaches:
wherein the user interface further comprises an area in which attributes of each of the one or more execution targets corresponding to a given phase are viewable , the user interface transitioning to presenting the area based at least in part on receiving user input selecting the visual representation corresponding to the phase (see figs. 9B-9C, par. 0175, wherein FIG. 9B depicts example interface 910 for monitoring active fleet operations in accordance with one or more embodiments. As can be seen, interface 910 displays various information about the active fleet operations including the operation names, the operation types, the creator (i.e., the username of the administrator that created the operation), the operation start time, the operation status, the completion ratio, and the individual operation completion status. The individual operation status indicates how many reserved operations within a fleet operation maintenance window have succeed, how many have failed, and how many are in progress; see also par. 0176, wherein as Responsive to the user selecting a fleet operation within interface 910, a drilled-down display may be presented to provide more detail about the selected fleet operation. FIG. 9C depicts an example interface 920 for providing a detailed report of an active fleet operation in accordance with one or more embodiments. Interface 920 may be displayed responsive to a user selecting the “ALPHA ZONE PATCHING” fleet operation within interface 910. Interface 920 displays the status of each time slot within the maintenance window. As can be seen, the first slot is in progress, and the remaining three slots have not yet started. The individual service target operation details are also displayed for the first slot that is in progress. The details identify which of the individual operations have completed and which are still running. The details further specify contact information for the tenant that reserved the operation and the elapsed time of the operation; taught by KUCHIBHOTLA).
Claims 8 and 15 amount to the system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions for executing the method claim 1, respectively. Accordingly, claims 8 and 15 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 1 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claim 10 amounts to the system for executing the method claim 3. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 3 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claims 11 and 17 amount to the system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions for executing the method claim 4, respectively. Accordingly, claims 11 and 17 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 4 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claims 14 and 20 amount to the system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions for executing the method claim 7, respectively. Accordingly, claims 14 and 20 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 7 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IYOOB et al. (US20140317166A1) in view of KHAKARE et al. (US20210055917A1) and further in view of KUCHIBHOTLA et al. (US20180083889A1) and further in view of VICE et al. (US8615517B1).
As to claim 2, IYOOB, KHAKARE and KUCHIBHOTLA teach the limitations of claim 1. IYOOB, KHAKARE and KUCHIBHOTLA do not expressly teach wherein the user interface presents a plurality of visual representations comprising the visual representation, each visual representation of the plurality of visual representations presenting respective progress of executing the release at a respective set of one or more execution targets corresponding to a respective phase of the plurality of phases.
In similar field of endeavor, VICE teaches wherein the user interface presents a plurality of visual representations comprising the visual representation, each visual representation of the plurality of visual representations presenting respective progress of executing the release at a respective set of one or more execution targets corresponding to a respective phase of the plurality of phases (see fig. 12, col. 16, ln. 60 – col. 17, ln. 4, wherein FIG. 12 shows an embodiment of an illustrative graphical user interface depicting function or “job” progress of defined project preferences and workflow profiles, once initiated, in accordance with the present disclosures. This graphical user interface can identify (but not be limited to) progress and status of multiple or specific tasks (i.e. ingest, transcode, duplicate, transfer, upload, archive, file verification); confirmation of master checksums as applied to duplicate media; display of data file volume; display of function progress as represented by fill bar; function result as represented by dots view; and more; as taught by VICE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the IYOOB, KHAKARE and L KUCHIBHOTLA method to include the teachings of VICE wherein the user interface presents a plurality of visual representations comprising the visual representation, each visual representation of the plurality of visual representations presenting respective progress of executing the release at a respective set of one or more execution targets corresponding to a respective phase of the plurality of phases. Such a person would have been motivated to make this combination as the it is advantageous for the user to monitor the installation state and the progress of all the releases in a dashboard when there are many tasks running at the same time so that the user does not miss any errors or warnings and then drill down for more details if need be (see also VICE, col. 1, ll. 24-40).
Claims 9 and 16 amount to the system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions for executing the method claim 2, respectively. Accordingly, claims 9 and 16 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 2 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claims 5-6, 12-13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IYOOB et al. (US20140317166A1) in view of KHAKARE et al. (US20210055917A1) and further in view of KUCHIBHOTLA et al. (US20180083889A1) and further in view of TAN et al. (US20150261645A1).
As to claim 5, IYOOB, KHAKARE and KUCHIBHOTLA teach the limitations of claim 1. KUCHIBHOTLA further teaches wherein the user interface comprises a progress bar that comprises a plurality of visual representations (see claim 1 rejection above).
IYOOB, KHAKARE and KUCHIBHOTLA do not expressly teach each visual representation of the plurality of visual representations corresponding to a respective phase of the plurality of phases.
In similar field of endeavor, TAN teaches each visual representation of the plurality of visual representations corresponding to a respective phase of the plurality of phases (see figs. 1-7, par. 0013, wherein in an initial state, representation parts corresponding to a file package increment and a file package non-increment are drawn in a same geometric figure by using a first color and a second color respectively instead of using 100% of a geometric figure to represent a to-be-downloaded or to-be-installed file package increment; therefore, in a process of downloading the file package increment, only the first color of the representation part corresponding to the file package increment is updated; see pars. 0030-0039; as taught by TAN).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the IYOOB, KHAKARE and KUCHIBHOTLA method to include the teachings of TAN wherein each visual representation of the plurality of visual representations corresponding to a respective phase of the plurality of phases. Such a person would have been motivated to make this combination as in order to make a user know how much of a current software installation file package has been downloaded or installed during the downloading process or software installing process, a typical method involves displaying current progress by a progress bar. In the downloading or installing process, extension of the progress bar indicates to what degree the current downloading or installing has proceeded. It is required to provide a method for displaying incremental update progress, to adapt to characteristics of incremental update (see also TAN, pars. 0003-0005).
As to claim 6, IYOOB, KHAKARE, KUCHIBHOTLA and TAN teach the limitations of claim 5. TAN further teaches wherein the progress bar presents metadata corresponding to each phase of the plurality of phases (see par. 0031, wherein a geometric figure representing a whole file package is an annulus. As shown in FIG. 3A, assuming that a file package increment accounts for 25% of the whole file package, a first color is used to draw a representation part corresponding to a file package increment in the geometric figure and a second color is used to draw a representation part corresponding to a file package non-increment in the geometric figure. In an example, a geometric figure representing a whole file package is a circular pie. As shown in FIG. 3B, assuming that a file package increment accounts for 25% of the whole file package, a first color is used to draw a representation part corresponding to a file package increment in the geometric figure and a second color is used to draw a representation part corresponding to a file package non-increment in the geometric figure; as taught by TAN).
Claims 12 and 18 amount to the system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions for executing the method claim 5, respectively. Accordingly, claims 12 and 18 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 5 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Claims 13 and 19 amount to the system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions for executing the method claim 6, respectively. Accordingly, claims 13 and 19 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as presented above for claim 6 and based on the references’ disclosure of the necessary supporting hardware and software.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Publication Number
Filing Date
Title
US20160350094A1
2015-05-26
Application download emulation
US9501751B1
2008-04-10
Virtual interactive taskboard for tracking agile software development
US10649630B1
2019-01-08
Graphical user interfaces for software asset management
US10776244B2
2013-07-09
Consolidation planning services for systems migration
US20110154213A1
2009-12-18
Method and apparatus for presenting content download progress
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOOROSH NEHCHIRI whose telephone number is (408)918-7643. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 PST.
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, William L. Bashore can be reached on 571-272-4088. 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.
/KOOROSH NEHCHIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights