DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (All Claims)
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed a method and claims 11-20 are directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Claims 1 and 11)
Regarding claim 1, the following limitations are abstract ideas:
interpreting, based on the first textual configuration that describes the database, a plurality of textual rules to: is a step that can be practically performed in the human mind and is a mental process which encompasses observation, evaluation and/or judgement;
predict a first scalar estimate that characterizes reliability, availability, or serviceability (RAS) for the first textual configuration that describes the database, is a step that can be practically performed in the human mind and is a mental process which encompasses observation, evaluation and/or judgement;
generate a second textual configuration that describes the database, is a step that can be practically performed in the human mind and is a mental process which encompasses observation, evaluation and/or judgement;
predict a second scalar estimate that characterizes RAS for the second textual configuration that describes the database, wherein the second scalar estimate exceeds the first scalar estimate; is a step that can be practically performed in the human mind and is a mental process which encompasses observation, evaluation and/or judgement;
generating a report that represents the second textual configuration that describes the database; is a step that can be practically performed in the human mind and is a mental process which encompasses observation, evaluation and/or judgement;
The above analysis applies to each independent claim as they contain similar limitations.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Claims 1 and 11)
Regarding claim 1, the following limitations are additional elements:
receiving a first textual configuration that describes a database; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
configuring and operating the database with the second textual configuration, including improving said operating by exceeding the first scalar estimate; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
wherein the method is performed by one or more computers. is a high-level recitation of a generic computer component and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application;
Regarding claim 11, the following limitations are additional elements:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause: is a high-level recitation of a generic computer component and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application;
receiving a first textual configuration that describes a database; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
configuring and operating the database with the second textual configuration, including improving said operating by exceeding the first scalar estimate. is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B (Claims 1 and 11)
Regarding claim 1, the following limitations are additional elements:
receiving a first textual configuration that describes a database; when re-evaluated under step 2B is further directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
configuring and operating the database with the second textual configuration, including improving said operating by exceeding the first scalar estimate; is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
wherein the method is performed by one or more computers. ((i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s))
Regarding claim 11, the following limitations are additional elements:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause: ((i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s))
receiving a first textual configuration that describes a database; when re-evaluated under step 2B is further directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data as identified in MPEP 2106.05(d)II “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
configuring and operating the database with the second textual configuration, including improving said operating by exceeding the first scalar estimate. is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The dependent claims are directed to the same abstract ideas as their parent claims. The dependent claims add further limitations of clarifying certain aspects such as the configurations, adding aspects such as a questionnaire, and/or clarifying other aspects of the invention such as using a pluggable database. These are further additional elements such as mere data gathering as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or field of use as identified in MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, 11-15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choudhary et al., United States Patent No. 11,372,923 (hereinafter Choudhary) in view of Tankovich et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0264632 (hereinafter Tankovich) and Procek et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0382742 (hereinafter Procek).
Regarding claim 1, Choudhary teaches:
A method comprising: receiving a first textual configuration that describes a database (Choudhary Column 50 Lines 38-45, If a user does not wish to import the entity definition records into the data store, the previous 32002 button can be selected to display the previous GUI (e.g., GUI 31000 in FIG. 10V) and the user may edit the configuration (e.g., record type, component type, etc.) of the import);
interpreting, based on the first textual configuration that describes the database, a plurality of textual rules to (Choudhary Column 22 Lines 5-10, The entity definitions, the service definitions, and the KPI definitions can be stored in a data store 290 in a key-value store, a configuration file, a lookup file, a database, ):
generate a second textual configuration that describes the database (Choudhary Column 50 Lines 38-45, If a user does not wish to import the entity definition records into the data store, the previous 32002 button can be selected to display the previous GUI (e.g., GUI 31000 in FIG. 10V) and the user may edit the configuration (e.g., record type, component type, etc.) of the import (Tankovich teaches a second configuration in paragraph 30)), and
generating a report that represents the second textual configuration that describes the database (Choudhary Column 93 Lines 5-10, If a threshold is configured to be applied to a certain individual KPI, then a specified action (e.g., generate alert, add to report) will be triggered when a value of that KPI reaches (or exceeds) the individual KPI threshold); and
wherein the method is performed by one or more computers (Choudhary Column 24 Lines 1-7, The method may be performed by processing logic that may comprise hardware (circuitry, dedicated logic, etc.), software (such as is run on a general purpose computer system or a dedicated machine), or a combination of both).
Choudhary does not expressly disclose:
predict a first scalar estimate that characterizes reliability, availability, or serviceability (RAS) for the first textual configuration that describes the database,
predict a second scalar estimate that characterizes RAS for the second textual configuration that describes the database, wherein the second scalar estimate exceeds the first scalar estimate;
However, Tankovich teaches:
predict a first scalar estimate that characterizes reliability, availability, or serviceability (RAS) for the first textual configuration that describes the database (Tankovich Paragraph [0098], This step takes n tile hypotheses as input and predicts deltas for the tile hypotheses plus a scalar value w (e.g., a confidence value 180) (Choudhary teaches the text configuration while Tankovich teaches a configuration, Procek teaches the availability in Paragraphs 15 and 16)),
predict a second scalar estimate that characterizes RAS for the second textual configuration that describes the database (Tankovich Paragraph [0098], This step takes n tile hypotheses as input and predicts deltas for the tile hypotheses plus a scalar value w (e.g., a confidence value 180) (Choudhary teaches the text configuration while Tankovich teaches a configuration, Procek teaches the availability in Paragraphs 15 and 16)), wherein the second scalar estimate exceeds the first scalar estimate (Tankovich Paragraph [0098], This step takes n tile hypotheses as input and predicts deltas for the tile hypotheses plus a scalar value w (e.g., a confidence value 180), Paragraph [0149], wherein the method includes selecting the refined second plane hypothesis for the image region in response to the second confidence value being greater than the first confidence value);
The claimed invention and Tankovich are from the analogous art of scalar systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Choudhary in view of Tankovich to have combined Choudhary in view of Tankovich. Tankovich teaches improving the accuracy of depth maps by using deep learning networks (Paragraph 3).
Choudhary in view of Tankovich does not expressly disclose:
configuring and operating the database with the second textual configuration, including improving said operating by exceeding the first scalar estimate;
However, Procek teaches:
configuring and operating the database with the second textual configuration, including improving said operating by exceeding the first scalar estimate (Procek Paragraph [0047], The cloud platform executes the provisioning tools 410e to perform various actions such as configuring the target database profile and configuration and applying the latest schema templates 410d by ensuring that the database schema conforms to the latest schema templates (Choudhary teaches a textual configuration while Procek teaches a configuration));
The claimed invention and Procek are from the analogous art of database systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Choudhary in view of Tankovich and Procek to have combined Choudhary in view of Tankovich and Procek. Procek teaches using a replicated database management system to keep a database active while upgrading the system (Paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 2, Choudhary in view of Tankovich and Procek further teaches:
The method of Claim 1 wherein: the method further comprises predefining a plurality of reference architectures (Procek Paragraph [0028], FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating architecture of an online system configured to upgrade a database management system deployed on a cloud platform);
the first textual configuration indicates none of the reference architectures (Choudhary Column 50 Lines 38-45, If a user does not wish to import the entity definition records into the data store, the previous 32002 button can be selected to display the previous GUI (e.g., GUI 31000 in FIG. 10V) and the user may edit the configuration (e.g., record type, component type, etc.) of the import);
said generate the second textual configuration comprises (Choudhary Column 50 Lines 38-45, If a user does not wish to import the entity definition records into the data store, the previous 32002 button can be selected to display the previous GUI (e.g., GUI 31000 in FIG. 10V) and the user may edit the configuration (e.g., record type, component type, etc.) of the import (Tankovich teaches a second configuration in paragraph 30)):
a) one of the textual rules selecting, based on the first scalar estimate that characterizes RAS for the first textual configuration, one of the reference architectures (Choudhary Column 12 Lines 10-16, The present disclosure is directed to monitoring performance of a system at a service level using key performance indicators derived from machine data. Implementations of the present disclosure provide users with insight to the performance of monitored services, such as, services pertaining to an information technology (IT) environment), and
b) one or more of the textual rules generating, based on said one of the reference architectures, the second textual configuration (Procek Paragraph [0047], The cloud platform executes the provisioning tools 410e to perform various actions such as configuring the target database profile and configuration and applying the latest schema templates 410d by ensuring that the database schema conforms to the latest schema templates);
the report that represents the second textual configuration indicates said one of the reference architectures (Procek Paragraph [0021], The application 125 configures a user interface 115 for display on a client device 110. The user interface may be displayed by an application running on the client device 110, for example, a browser application. The user interface 115 may allow a user to interact with the online system 120 to access data stored in the data store 150 or update the data stored in the data store 150).
Regarding claim 3, Choudhary in view of Tankovich and Procek further teaches:
The method of Claim 2 further comprising one of the textual rules copying, from said one of the reference architectures to the second textual configuration (Choudhary Column 50 Lines 38-45, If a user does not wish to import the entity definition records into the data store, the previous 32002 button can be selected to display the previous GUI (e.g., GUI 31000 in FIG. 10V) and the user may edit the configuration (e.g., record type, component type, etc.) of the import), at least one scalar value selected from a group consisting of a fraction of a rack (Choudhary Column 168 Lines, 35-42, inventory information may include information about the service or the entities providing the service, such as an identifier of the entities (e.g., a host name, server name), a location of the entities (e.g., rack number, data center name)), an indication of elasticity, a size limit of a redo log, and a count of datacenters (Choudhary Column 170 Lines 15-25, Modem data centers often comprise thousands of host computer systems that operate collectively to service requests from even larger numbers of remote clients. During operation, these data centers generate significant volumes of performance data and diagnostic information that can be analyzed to quickly diagnose performance problems).
Regarding claim 4, Choudhary in view of Tankovich and Procek further teaches:
The method of Claim 1 further comprising the textual rules generating the second textual configuration based on information from an interactive questionnaire comprising at least two weights that indicate a respective relative severity of a condition selected from a group consisting of (Choudhary Column 106 Lines 10-16, when multiple KPIs (e.g., KPI1 and KPI2) are specified in the search information, the KPI correlation search treats the multiple KPIs conjunctively in determining whether the correlation search trigger condition has been met): a hardware failure, a network outage (Choudhary Column 182 Lines 30-35, (2) multiple events that collectively warrant review, such as a large number of authentication failures on a host followed by a successful authentication), a database outage (Choudhary Column 48 Lines 55-56, if the search query definition does not output a table, an error message is displayed), and a loss of data.
Regarding claim 5, Choudhary in view of Tankovich and Procek further teaches:
The method of Claim 4 wherein: the method further comprises the textual rules generating, based on the first scalar estimate that characterizes RAS for the first textual configuration, a plurality of urgencies of differences between the first textual configuration and the second textual configuration (Choudhary Column 182, Lines 20-25, Key indicators view 7700 additionally displays a histogram panel 7704 that displays a histogram of notable events organized by urgency values, and a histogram of notable events organized by time intervals);
said generating the report that represents the second textual configuration comprises performing, based on said urgencies of differences (Choudhary Column 182, Lines 20-25, Key indicators view 7700 additionally displays a histogram panel 7704 that displays a histogram of notable events organized by urgency values, and a histogram of notable events organized by time intervals), a formatting that includes coloring (Choudhary Column 79 Lines 25-30, The widget can also illustrate (e.g., using visual indicators such as color, shading, shape, pattern, trend compared to a different time range, etc.) the KPTs current state defined by one or more thresholds of the KPI).
Regarding claim 7, Choudhary in view of Tankovich and Procek further teaches:
The method of Claim 1 wherein: the first textual configuration comprises an automatically generated diagnostic report (Choudhary Column 170 Lines 20-25, these data centers generate significant volumes of performance data and diagnostic information that can be analyzed to quickly diagnose performance problems);
the second textual configuration does not comprise an automatically generated diagnostic report (Choudhary Column 171 Lines 5-10, performance data is stored as “events,” wherein each event comprises a collection of performance data and/or diagnostic information that is generated by a computer system and is correlated with a specific point in time);
the method further comprises the textual rules generating the second textual configuration based on an indication, in the automatically generated diagnostic report (Choudhary Column 170 Lines 20-25, these data centers generate significant volumes of performance data and diagnostic information that can be analyzed to quickly diagnose performance problems), of a failure of an automated check of at least one condition selected from a group consisting of (Choudhary Column 181 Lines 10-16, One such application is the SPLUNK® APP FOR ENTERPRISE SECURITY, which performs monitoring and alerting operations and includes analytics to facilitate identifying both known and unknown security threats based on large volumes of data stored by the SPLUNK®3 ENTERPRISE system):
completeness of the automatically generated diagnostic report (Choudhary Column 170 Lines 20-25, these data centers generate significant volumes of performance data and diagnostic information that can be analyzed to quickly diagnose performance problems),
recency of a software version of a database server,
recency of a firmware version of a storage server,
recency of a firmware version of a remote direct memory access (RDMA) switch,
validity of a checksum of a disk block in the database,
integrity of file metadata for the database,
integrity of column content in the database, and
integrity of a relational index in the database.
Regarding claim 8, Choudhary in view of Tankovich and Procek further teaches:
The method of Claim 1 further comprising one of the textual rules predicting a failure of at least one service level objective (SLO) selected from a group consisting of: network latency (Choudhary Column 17 Lines 10-15, The API can generate network packet data including performance measurements for the virtual machine, such as, memory utilization, CPU usage, etc.), network bandwidth (Choudhary Column 17 Lines 10-15, The API can generate network packet data including performance measurements for the virtual machine, such as, memory utilization, CPU usage, etc.), uptime ratio, degraded capacity ratio, recovery time objective (RTO), and recovery point objective (RPO).
Claims 11-15, 17, and 18 are rejected in the same manner as claims 1-5, 7, and 8 but are merely directed to a different embodiment of the same invention (method/non-transitory computer-readable media). Choudhary further teaches a processing device, memory, and computer-readable media (Column 185 Lines 5-16).
Claim(s) 6, 9, 10, 16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choudhary in view of Tankovich, Procek, and Earnesty, JR. et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0104375 (hereinafter Earnesty).
Regarding claim 6, Choudhary in view of Tankovich and Procek teaches parent claim 1.
Choudhary in view of Tankovich and Procek further teaches:
the second textual configuration does not comprise information from an interactive questionnaire (Choudhary Column 50 Lines 38-45, If a user does not wish to import the entity definition records into the data store, the previous 32002 button can be selected to display the previous GUI (e.g., GUI 31000 in FIG. 10V) and the user may edit the configuration (e.g., record type, component type, etc.) of the import);
Choudhary in view of Tankovich and Procek does not expressly disclose:
the first textual configuration comprises information from an interactive questionnaire;
the method further comprises the textual rules generating the second textual configuration based on the information from the interactive questionnaire comprising at least one declarative indication selected from a group consisting of:
an indication that the database will be accessed by bytecode or a scripting language and
an indication that the database will have an asymmetric standby.
However, Earnesty teaches:
the first textual configuration comprises information from an interactive questionnaire (Earnesty Paragraph [0081], the sizing and costing engine can include a questionnaire (e.g., completed by an enterprise or organization associated with the source system) to summarize a database estate (statistical grouping) of the database estate to be migrated);
the method further comprises the textual rules generating the second textual configuration based on the information from the interactive questionnaire comprising at least one declarative indication selected from a group consisting of (Earnesty Paragraph [0081], the sizing and costing engine can include a questionnaire (e.g., completed by an enterprise or organization associated with the source system) to summarize a database estate (statistical grouping) of the database estate to be migrated):
an indication that the database will be accessed by bytecode or a scripting language and (Earnesty Paragraph [0052], one or more scripts (e.g., reverse engineering scripts) can be executed on the source system to determine fine grain information about the source databases)
an indication that the database will have an asymmetric standby (Earnesty Paragraph [0171], certain databases, such as standby contingencies, can be assigned a BCP environment, and the corresponding database).
The claimed invention and Earnesty are from the analogous art of database systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Choudhary in view of Tankovich, Procek, and Earnesty to have combined Choudhary in view of Tankovich, Procek, and Earnesty. Earnesty teaches the benefits of automated and integrated engines to provide improvements to product performance and functionality (Paragraph 72).
Regarding claim 9, Choudhary in view of Tankovich and Procek teaches parent claim 1.
Choudhary in view of Tankovich and Procek does not expressly disclose:
the database is a container database that contains a plurality of pluggable databases;
the method further comprises the textual rules calculating, based on a count of the pluggable databases, the first scalar estimate that characterizes RAS for the first textual configuration.
However, Earnesty teaches:
the database is a container database that contains a plurality of pluggable databases (Earnesty Paragraph [0202], The target container database (“CDB”) and/or pluggable database (“PDB”) names);
the method further comprises the textual rules calculating (Earnesty Paragraph [0073], the mapping from a classified source database to target database and/or target hardware can similarly be based on a number of customizable rules), based on a count of the pluggable databases (Earnesty Paragraph [0202], The target container database (“CDB”) and/or pluggable database (“PDB”) names), the first scalar estimate that characterizes RAS for the first textual configuration (Earnesty Paragraph [0080], The sizing and costing engine can perform a migration estimate (level of effort) for a migration project given a summarized database estate (statistical grouping)).
The claimed invention and Earnesty are from the analogous art of database systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Choudhary in view of Tankovich, Procek, and Earnesty to have combined Choudhary in view of Tankovich, Procek, and Earnesty. Earnesty teaches the benefits of automated and integrated engines to provide improvements to product performance and functionality (Paragraph 72).
Regarding claim 10, Choudhary in view of Tankovich and Procek teaches parent claim 1.
Choudhary in view of Tankovich and Procek does not expressly disclose:
The method of Claim 1 wherein the first textual configuration consists essentially of information from an interactive questionnaire.
However, Earnesty teaches:
The method of Claim 1 wherein the first textual configuration consists essentially of information from an interactive questionnaire (Earnesty Paragraph [0081], the sizing and costing engine can include a questionnaire (e.g., completed by an enterprise or organization associated with the source system) to summarize a database estate (statistical grouping) of the database estate to be migrated).
The claimed invention and Earnesty are from the analogous art of database systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Choudhary in view of Tankovich, Procek, and Earnesty to have combined Choudhary in view of Tankovich, Procek, and Earnesty. Earnesty teaches the benefits of automated and integrated engines to provide improvements to product performance and functionality (Paragraph 72).
Claims 16, 19, and 20 are rejected in the same manner as claims 6, 9, and 10 but are merely directed to a different embodiment of the same invention (method/non-transitory computer-readable media).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A detailed explanation is provided below.
On pages 8-13, Applicant argues against the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant argues that Tankovich is non-analogous art and cannot handle text, the Examiner disagrees. Both the claimed invention and the Tankovich reference are processing certain pieces of data. Both of them use scalar estimates or values during this process. This shows that there is overlap in the two references and that one of ordinary skill in the art would find the Tankovich reference useful when evaluating scalar values. The Tankovich reference was brought in to teach scalar values/estimates. The Choudhary reference is the primary reference and discloses the claimed text configurations and does briefly mention that key-value pairs may be scalar but did not go into enough detail to disclose the limitations that Tankovich is shown to teach. Therefore, Tankovich is analogous art as it’s system does not need to handle text, the system of Choudhary would need to handle the scalar values of Tankovich. The Examiner has cited the new Procek reference that teaches one of the RAS properties as the claim only requires one of them.
Applicant argues that Choudhary does not disclose claim 3, the Examiner disagrees. Choudhary teaches inventory information may include information about the server or the entities providing the service such as identifier of the entities or location of the entities (e.g., rack number) (Column 168 Lines 35-42). While the rack number may be for a whole rack, the entity that is located on the rack that is providing the service would be considered a fraction of that rack and the rack number is merely where that entity is located. The claim is not specific on how many data centers are considered in the count, Choudhary disclosing one data center could be considered a count of a single data center. Therefore, Choudhary does disclose this limitation.
Applicant argues that Choudhary does not disclose the network outage or the database outage of claim 4, the Examiner disagrees. Choudhary teaches authentication failures on a host (Column 182, Lines 30-35). This is considered a network outage as the authentication has failed. Choudhary further teaches a search query definition that does not output table which displays an error message (Column 48 Lines 55-56). This is considered a database outage as the output of a table (database table) was not successful.
Applicant argues that Choudhary does not disclose claim 5, the Examiner disagrees. Choudhary has been shown to disclose the textual configurations. Choudhary further teaches a histogram panel that displays a histogram of notable events organized by urgency values (Column 182 lines 20-25). Choudhary further teaches that these notable events can be an analyst noticing a correlation in the data (Column 181 lines 60-65). This shows that the events relate to the data. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this teaching of Choudhary could be done with the textual configurations that Choudhary discloses. Therefore, Choudhary does disclose this limitation.
The rejection of claim 6 has been updated to show how the references disclose the amended portion.
Applicant argues that Choudhary does not disclose claim 7, the Examiner disagrees. Choudhary teaches data centers using diagnostic information that can be analyzed to quickly diagnose performance problems (columns 170 lines 20-25). Claim 7 is directed to automatically generating diagnostic reports when a failure occurs. This teaching of Choudhary is directed to diagnostic information for diagnosing problems. Therefore, Choudhary does disclose this limitation.
Applicant argues that Choudhary does not disclose telemetry about network packets, the Examiner disagrees. Choudhary discloses generating network packet data including performance measurements of the virtual machine (Column 17 Lines 10-15). Applicant argues that the packet data is about memory and CPU, Choudhary is merely giving a list of what the performance measurements can be but not limited it to only memory and CPU. Therefore, Choudhary does disclose this limitation.
Applicant argues against the Choudhary reference for claim 9, the limitations for claim 9 are rejected using the Earnesty reference.
On pages 13-15, Applicant argues against the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant argues that claim 1 recites “improving said operating by exceeding” which shows an improvement, the Examiner disagrees. As previously stated, the claims are merely comparing two values and applying the configuration for one of the values. It is not clear how this improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology. The claims do not provide detail on how these RAS properties are used in the scalar values or how the scalar value is calculated. Merely comparing two values does not show an improvement. Therefore the claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application, the Examiner agrees. The claims generate two scalar estimates and compare those values to figure out which configuration to apply. It is not clear how this integrates the claims into a practical application. The claims do not provide detail on how the scalar estimate is determined from these new characteristics of reliability, availability, or serviceability. Therefore, the claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant argues that claim 1 cannot be practically performed in the human mind, the Examiner disagrees. As shown in the above 101 rejection, certain elements can be performed in the human mind while others cannot. Therefore, only some of the limitations are performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claims are stills rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li et al., Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0033806 (hereinafter Li). Li teaches reliability, availability, and serviceability (Paragraph 15). This shows that the claimed invention and Li are analogous art as both are directed to RAS.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN D EYERS whose telephone number is (408)918-7562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-7:00pm ET.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at (571)270-1698. 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.
/DUSTIN D EYERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2164
/AMY NG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights