CTNF 18/859,609 CTNF 81768 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding Claim 1 , it is stated in lines 8-10, “the information including information indicating a variable factor range as a range of values allowed for a variable factor to take during operation of the target system”. However, there are three separate items of “information” recited earlier in the claim (see lines 4, 6, and 7). Accordingly, it is unclear which “information” lines 8-10 is referring to. The examiner will presume for examination purposes that it is referring to the information mentioned in line 7. Regarding Claim 16 , it is stated in lines 7-9, “the information including information indicating a variable factor range as a range of values allowed for a variable factor to take during operation of the target system”. However, there are three separate items of “information” recited earlier in the claim (see lines 3, 5, and 8). Accordingly, it is unclear which “information” lines 7-9 is referring to. The examiner will presume for examination purposes that it is referring to the information mentioned in line 8. All claims that are not specifically addressed are rejected due to a dependency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Hanada et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0004513) . Regarding Claim 1 , Hanada discloses a system operation planning device (Figure 1, item 100) comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions (paragraph 0048); and at least one processor (paragraph 0047) configured to execute the instructions to: generate, based on abstract requirements (paragraph 0060; i.e., the “abstract requirements” may include requirements such as “avoid using expensive resources in order to cut the cost of physical resources”, and “avoid using a resource that is small in free capacity so as not to affect other business operation systems operating on the same physical server”) that are information indicating requirements to be satisfied by a target system (Figure 1, item 210) as a system to be operated, specific requirements (Figure 7, items 1412-1414, paragraph 0073; i.e., specific requirements [e.g., limit values] for the various parameters are created/generated based on the abstract requirements) that are information indicating requirements to be satisfied by the target system (i.e., the target system should not exceed those limits), the specific requirements including information indicating values of each of a plurality of values of a variable factor (Figure 7; i.e., the ”variable factor” being the various parameters, e.g., DB connection count, maximum process count, and connection timeout; each of those parameters has an associated per-unit resource usage value) included in a variable factor range (paragraphs 0072-0073; i.e., the upper and lower limits being equivalent to the “variable factor range”), the information including information indicating a variable factor range as a range of values allowed for a variable factor to take during operation of the target system (i.e., the upper and lower limits are the range of values that the target system is allow to take), the value of the variable factor being a value varying during the operation of the target system and having a correlation with an operation status of the target system (Figure 8, item 1422 and Figure 9, item 1433, paragraph 0083; i.e., the different parameters have the associated per-unit resource usage values [CPU, memory, and network band ranges] that will take on actual measurements during operation of the performance test [the “target system”]; they have a “correlation” with the operation status of the target system in that they are constantly being changed while the performance test is executing). Regarding Claim 2 , Hanada discloses wherein in a case where generating the specific requirements, the specific requirements are generated including a requirement that the target system includes a configuration for performing an observation in order to obtain a value of the variable factor (paragraphs 0088-0091; i.e., the parameter sets are observed in determining whether any more need to be generated). Regarding Claim 3 , Hanada discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate configuration information indicating a system configuration of the target system that satisfies each of the specific requirements (paragraph 0077; i.e., each chosen parameter falls within the upper and lower limit range, and thus satisfies each of the specific requirements). Regarding Claim 4 , Hanada discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate a configuration change procedure which is information indicating a procedure for changing a system configuration indicated by one of the configuration information to a system configuration indicated by another of the configuration information (Figure 11, item S117, paragraphs 0098-0099; i.e., the parameters are changed for each test; this is equivalent to the claimed “system configuration”). Regarding Claim 5 , Hanada discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate an operation plan that is information including information linking each of the specific requirements with the configuration change procedure that indicates a procedure for changing the system configuration of the target system to a system configuration that satisfies the requirements (paragraphs 0098-0099; i.e., each of the different parameter sets that are changed for each test run still fall within the upper and lower limits [paragraph 0072] and therefore satisfy the requirements). Regarding Claim 6 , Hanada discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to change the system configuration of the target system based on the configuration change procedure indicating a procedure for changing the system configuration of the target system to a system configuration that satisfies the specific requirement corresponding to the value of the variable factor obtained using a configuration for performing observation to obtain the value of the variable factor (paragraphs 0088-0091; i.e., the parameter sets are observed in determining whether any more need to be generated; further, appropriate parameters are chosen [the “system configuration”] that fall within the upper and lower limits [paragraph 0072] and thus satisfy the requirements). Regarding Claim 7 , Hanada discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: compare the value of the variable factor indicated by the specific requirements satisfied by a current system configuration of the target system with the value of the variable factor indicated by the specific requirements corresponding to the value of the variable factor obtained using a configuration for performing observations to obtain the value of the variable factor; and determine whether or not the system configuration of the target system needs to be changed (Figure 10, item S103 and Figure 11, item S117, paragraphs 0090 and 0098-0099; i.e., after performing the test on one of the sets of parameters [the “current system configuration”], the system determines whether a new set of parameters need to be loaded [“determine whether or not the system configuration of the target system needs to be changed”]). Regarding Claim 8 , Hanada discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to, in a case where a deviation between the value of the variable factor indicated by the specific requirement satisfied by the current system configuration of the target system and the value of the variable factor obtained using a configuration for performing observation to obtain the value of the variable factor is greater than a predetermined threshold, determine the value of the variable factor indicated by the specific requirement corresponding to the value of the variable factor obtained using a configuration for performing observation to obtain the value of the variable factor, and determines whether or not the system configuration of the target system needs to be changed (paragraphs 0100-0102; i.e., only parameter sets that fulfill the system requirements are used; if their values have deviated from the specific requirements [they are greater than a predetermined threshold], they are not used and another parameter set/system configuration is used instead). Regarding Claim 9 , Hanada discloses a display device (Figure 1, item 180) comprising: a display configured to display a list of variable factors (Figure 16, items 1711) whose values change during operation of a target system (Figure 9, item 1433; i.e., as can be seen in Figure 9, the values of response time and throughput, which are part of the variable factors displayed on the screen, change and are measured), which is a system to be operated (Figure 1, item 210), and whose values have a correlation with the operating status of the target system (Figure 8, item 1422 and Figure 9, item 1433, paragraph 0083; i.e., the different parameters will take on actual measurements during operation of the performance test [the “target system”]; they have a “correlation” with the operation status of the target system in that they are constantly being changed while the performance test is executing). Regarding Claim 10 , Hanada discloses an interface configured to receive a user operation for designating a variable factor to be used for determining whether or not the system configuration of the target system needs to be changed during operation of the target system, among the variable factors shown in the list (paragraphs 0087 and 0127; i.e., the user can select which parameter set they want to use). Regarding Claim 16 , Hanada discloses a system operation planning method executed by a computer, the method comprising: based on abstract requirements (paragraph 0060; i.e., the “abstract requirements” may include requirements such as “avoid using expensive resources in order to cut the cost of physical resources”, and “avoid using a resource that is small in free capacity so as not to affect other business operation systems operating on the same physical server”) that are information indicating requirements to be satisfied by a target system (Figure 1, item 210) as a system to be operated, generating specific requirements (Figure 7, items 1412-1414, paragraph 0073; i.e., specific requirements [e.g., limit values] for the various parameters are created/generated based on the abstract requirements) that are information indicating requirements to be satisfied by the target system (i.e., the target system should not exceed those limits), the specific requirements including information indicating values of each of a plurality of values of a variable factor (Figure 7; i.e., the ”variable factor” being the various parameters, e.g., DB connection count, maximum process count, and connection timeout; each of those parameters has an associated per-unit resource usage value) included in a variable factor range (paragraphs 0072-0073; i.e., the upper and lower limits being equivalent to the “variable factor range”), the information including information indicating a variable factor range as a range of values allowed for a variable factor to take during operation of the target system (i.e., the upper and lower limits are the range of values that the target system is allow to take), the value of the variable factor being a value varying during the operation of the target system and having a correlation with an operation status of the target system (Figure 8, item 1422 and Figure 9, item 1433, paragraph 0083; i.e., the different parameters have the associated per-unit resource usage values [CPU, memory, and network band ranges] that will take on actual measurements during operation of the performance test [the “target system”]; they have a “correlation” with the operation status of the target system in that they are constantly being changed while the performance test is executing) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because each reference discloses systems for operation planning for target systems . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAISAL M ZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm, alternate Fridays. 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, Andrew J. Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. 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. /FAISAL M ZAMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175 Application/Control Number: 18/859,609 Page 2 Art Unit: 2175 Application/Control Number: 18/859,609 Page 3 Art Unit: 2175 Application/Control Number: 18/859,609 Page 4 Art Unit: 2175 Application/Control Number: 18/859,609 Page 5 Art Unit: 2175 Application/Control Number: 18/859,609 Page 6 Art Unit: 2175 Application/Control Number: 18/859,609 Page 7 Art Unit: 2175
Prosecution Insights