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 .
Status of the Application
This action is a first action on the merits in response to the application filed on 10/31/2024.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 filed on 10/31/2024 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2024 and on 11/08/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-12 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-12 even if the claims were directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of utilizing production data for predicting one or more outcomes in the context of production processes (for example, to determine a C02 generation during a production of a product, a specific material use during the production of a product, etc.).
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “run analytic workloads requiring predetermined production data” wherein the analytic workload is defined in the original disclosure as “For example, an analytic workload can refer to a production data model utilizing the production data for predicting one or more outcomes in the context of production processes. Moreover, the respective analytical workload can also refer to an analysis of respective production data to determine respective production characteristics, for example, to determine a C02 generation during a production of a product, a specific material use during the production of a product, etc. Moreover, the analytic workload can also refer to an optimization model allowing to optimize a production process with respect to one or more production parameters based on the required production data.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for optimization a production process with respect to one or more production parameters. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 11 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-10 and 12 recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for optimization a production process with respect to one or more production parameters. As a result, claims 2-10 and 12 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “A system for accessing production data of one or more production plants, wherein the production data is stored on a plurality of databases wherein the system comprises: an abstraction layer adapted to access each of the plurality of databases for retrieving production data from a respective database and for providing the retrieved data for further processing, and a model interface adapted to from the one or more of the plurality of databases, and further adapted to cause the abstraction layer to retrieve the required predetermined production data from one or more of the plurality of databases and to provide the retrieved required predetermined production data to the analytic workload running on the model interface”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the step of “retrieve” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “retrieve” is an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claim 11 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 11 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-10 and 12 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1 and 11. As a result, claims 2-10 and 12 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “A system for accessing production data of one or more production plants, wherein the production data is stored on a plurality of databases wherein the system comprises: an abstraction layer adapted to access each of the plurality of databases for retrieving production data from a respective database and for providing the retrieved data for further processing, and a model interface adapted to from the one or more of the plurality of databases, and further adapted to cause the abstraction layer to retrieve the required predetermined production data from one or more of the plurality of databases and to provide the retrieved required predetermined production data to the analytic workload running on the model interface”. The step of “retrieve” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because “retrieve” is well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 11 recites substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 11 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-10 and 12 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1 and 11. As a result, claims 2-10 and 12 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to software per se. Applicant has claimed “A computer program product” with the broadest reasonable interpretation, since the claim does not comprise physical elements, it can be interpreted as software elements, i.e. printed matter. Printed matter is not statutory subject matter under 35 USC 101. As a result, this claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In order to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations (claim 11) that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “model interface adapted to”.
Regarding claims 1-11, the use of “model interface adapted to” in the claims are considered to be supported by sufficient structures in the specification to perform the function.
Page 18 last Paragraph recites “Those skilled in the art will appreciate that at least parts of the invention may be practiced in network computing environments with many types of computing system configurations, including, personal computers, desktop computers, laptop computers, message processors, hand-held devices, multi-processor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, mobile telephones” wherein a computer to perform the function, and Page 18 first Paragraph recites “When information is transferred or provided over a network or another communications connection, for example, either hardwired, wireless, or a combination of hardwired or wireless, to a computing system, the computing system properly views the connection as a transmission medium. Transmission media can include a network and/or data links which25 can be ed to carry desired program code means in the form of computer-executable instructions” among other devices capable of performing functions described herein” which is considered sufficient structures in the specification to perform the functions.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends on. In this instance, claim 10 fails to further limit claim 1 because it depends from any of the preceding claims. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends on. In this instance, claim 12 fails to further limit claim 1 because it depends from either claim or claim 11. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 – (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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Seibel et al. (US 20180191867 A1)
Regarding claim 1. Seibel teaches A system for accessing production data of one or more production plants, wherein the production data is stored on a plurality of databases, [Seibel, para. 0005 and 0164, Seibel teaches “a system for integrating, processing, and abstracting data related to an enterprise Internet-of-Things application development platform” and “For example, the relational data store may be designed to manage structured data, such as organization and customer data. Furthermore, the key/value store may be designed to manage very large volumes of interval (or time-series) data from other types of sensors, monitoring systems, or devices. Relational databases are generally designed for random access updates, while key/value store databases are designed for large streams of “append only” data that are usually read in a particular order (“append only” means that new data is simply added to the end of the file). By using a dedicated key/value store for interval data, the data services component 204 ensures that this type of data is stored efficiently and can be accessed quickly” wherein a system accessing production data stored in databases] wherein the system comprises: an abstraction layer adapted to access each of the plurality of databases for retrieving production data from a respective database and for providing the retrieved data for further processing, [Seibel, para. 0100, Seibel teaches “Some embodiments may include a product cloud that includes software running on a hosted elastic cloud technology infrastructure that stores or processes product data, customer data, enterprise data, and Internet data. The product cloud may provide one or more of: a platform for building and processing software applications; massive data storage capacity; a data abstraction layer that implements a type system; a rules engine and analytics platform; a machine learning engine; smart product applications; and social human-computer interaction models. One or more of the layers or services may depend on the data abstraction layer for accessing stored or managed data, communicating data between layers or applications, or otherwise store, access, or communicate data” wherein abstraction layer to store, access, or communicate data (provide/retrieve data)] and a model interface adapted to run analytic workloads requiring predetermined production data from the one or more of the plurality of databases, [Seibel, para. 0147, Seibel teaches “the integration component 202 is configured to integrate disparate data from a wide range of data sources 208. IoT applications need a reliable, efficient, and simple interface to load customer, asset, sensor, billing, and/or other data into the storage in an accessible manner. In one embodiment, the integration component 202 provides the following features: a set of canonical types that act as the public interfaces to applications, analytic, or other solutions; support for operational data sources, such as customer billing and customer management systems, asset management systems, workforce management systems, distribution management systems, outage management systems, meter or sensor data management systems, and/or the like;” wherein the integration component 202 is equivalent to the claimed model interface] and further adapted to cause the abstraction layer to retrieve the required predetermined production data from one or more of the plurality of databases and to provide the retrieved required predetermined production data to the analytic workload running on the model interface [Seibel, para. 0100, Seibel teaches “The product cloud may provide one or more of: a platform for building and processing software applications; massive data storage capacity; a data abstraction layer that implements a type system; a rules engine and analytics platform; a machine learning engine; smart product applications; and social human-computer interaction models. One or more of the layers or services may depend on the data abstraction layer for accessing stored or managed data, communicating data between layers or applications, or otherwise store, access, or communicate data.” wherein abstraction layer to store, access, or communicate data (provide/retrieve data). Also, see para. 0320 “The enterprise Internet-of-Things application development platform can integrate production data from hundreds of independent data sources and tens of millions of sensors aggregated into petabyte scale data sets using highly scalable elastic computation and storage architectures to provide processing capabilities” wherein production data providing data for processing].
Regarding claim 2. wherein the abstraction layer further comprises a mapping layer comprising a mapping of production data locations on the plurality of databases to production data identifications utilized by the model interface for indicating the required predetermined production data to the abstraction layer, wherein the abstraction layer is adapted to utilize the mapping for retrieving the required predetermined production data [Seibel, para. 0191, Seibel teaches “in one embodiment, the data abstraction layer provided by the type metadata component 404 is a metadata-based data mapping and persistence framework spanning relational, multi-dimensional, and NoSQL data stores. In metadata, developers define type definitions, including attributes and functions. The data abstraction layer allows developers to define extensible type models where new properties, relationships and functions can be added dynamically without requiring costly development cycles” wherein mapping layer comprising a mapping of production data locations on the plurality of databases to production data].
Regarding claim 3. wherein the abstraction layer comprises a harmonization model, wherein the harmonization model is adapted such that requests and responses are based on programming analytic workloads which are harmonized across the plurality of databases [Seibel, para. 0199, Seibel teaches “in one embodiment, the type metadata component 404 may also define a plurality of canonical types, which may be used by the integration component 202 to receive and transform data from data sources 208 into a standard format. As with a standard type definition, a canonical type is declared in metadata using syntax similar to that used by types persisted in the relational or NoSQL data store. Unlike a standard type, canonical types are comprised of two parts, the canonical type definition and one or more transformation types. The canonical type definition defines the interface used for integration and the transformation type is responsible for transforming the canonical type to a corresponding type. Using the transformation types, the integration layer may transform a canonical type to the appropriate type (such as a type defined by a developer)” wherein the canonical types are a form of harmonization].
Regarding claim 4. wherein the analytic workloads can refer to active or passive analytic workloads, wherein active analytic workloads are adapted to run automatically on the model interface when not instructed otherwise and passive analytic workloads are explicitly invoked by an external invocation service to run on the model interface by an external command [Seibel, para. 0687, Seibel teaches “The components, systems, modules, or layers may be passive or active, including agents operable to perform desired functions”].
Regarding claim 5. wherein the system further comprises a model management unit communicatively coupled with the invocation service, wherein the model management unit is adapted to manage the invocation of the passive analytic workloads on the model interface by causing the invocation service to invoke an analytic workload based in predetermined rules [Seibel, para. 0687, Seibel teaches “The components, systems, modules, or layers may be passive or active, including agents operable to perform desired functions”. Also see para. 0100 “The product cloud may provide one or more of: a platform for building and processing software applications; massive data storage capacity; a data abstraction layer that implements a type system; a rules engine and analytics platform;” wherein processing based-rules].
Regarding claim 8. wherein the abstraction layer comprises an access management layer adapted to manage a user access to one or more of the plurality of databases such that for each of the one or more database to which a user has access an access token for the user is generated allowing for the access to the respective database [Seibel, para. 0384, Seibel teaches “The data may be published to an external or third-party system, or be capable of providing them upon request with response times compatible with interactive web applications. The system 1900 may provide a set of REST APIs that enable third party applications to query and access data by meter, concentrator, time window, and measurement type. The REST API may support advanced modes or authentication such as OAuth 2.0 and token-based authentication” wherein token-based authentication].
Regarding claim 9. wherein the abstraction layer is adapted to provide a supertoken for a user for providing access to the access management layer, wherein the supertoken is encrypted and comprises all access tokens of the user and allows for a centralized access to the respective databases [Seibel, para. 0384, Seibel teaches “The data may be published to an external or third-party system, or be capable of providing them upon request with response times compatible with interactive web applications. The system 1900 may provide a set of REST APIs that enable third party applications to query and access data by meter, concentrator, time window, and measurement type. The REST API may support advanced modes or authentication such as OAuth 2.0 and token-based authentication” wherein advanced modes or authentication is equivalent to super token].
Regarding claim 10. A user model interaction environment, wherein the environment comprises: a user interface allowing a user to access the model interface of a system as described in any of the preceding claims for providing, adapting and/or controlling one or more analytic workloads [The BRI interpretation of the subject matter of claim 10 is a user interface. Seibel, figure 1, Seibel teaches user interface 110, 111, and 112].
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 1 is a system claim while claim 11 is directed to a method which is anticipated by Seibel claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 1 is a system claim while claim 12 is directed to a computer program product which is anticipated by Seibel para. 0684.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
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 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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Seibel.
Regarding claim 6. wherein the analytic workloads are hosted container-based Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 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 designer having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, the invention is not patentable.
In the instant case, workloads hosted and run on container environment, are design choice that would have been obvious to a skilled in the art to modify/combine with the teaching of Seibel. Implement workloads as container based is a common knowledge of a skilled person in the art to arrive to the subject matter of claim 6 with the benefit of allowing to access production data of any type from anywhere at any scale while requiring less computational resources.
Regarding claim 7. wherein the analytic workloads are containerized by running analytic workloads that have the same data scheduling within the same container environment the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 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 designer having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, the invention is not patentable.
In the instant case, workloads hosted and run on container environment, are design choice that would have been obvious to a skilled in the art to modify/combine with the teaching of Seibel. Implement workloads as container based (harmonization or scheduling within the same container environment) is a common knowledge of a skilled person in the art to arrive to the subject matter of claim 7 with the benefit of allowing to access production data of any type from anywhere at any scale while requiring less computational resources.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-3734.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (in US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623