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 Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter (See MPEP § 2106.03, subsections I and II). Claims 1-7 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Claims 8-14 are directed to a computer-implemented system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)). Claims 1, 8 and 15 under a broadest reasonable interpretation recite an abstract idea because the claims describe application-based recommendations based on generated scoring, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe fundamental economic principles or practices, including mitigating risk, describe commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations, and describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including following rules or instructions. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea.
Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving first data, second data, and third data;
generating a set of environment-level sustainability scores for an application using the first data, the second data, and the third data, wherein the set of environment-level sustainability scores corresponds to an environment of a group of environments of the application;
generating an application maturity score using the third data;
generating an application sustainability score using the set of environment-level sustainability scores for the application and the application maturity score;
generating a recommendation for the application based on the application sustainability score; and
initiating a modification to a datacenter of the application based on the recommendation for the application.
Claim 8:
A system comprising:
a memory having computer readable instructions; and
one or more processors for executing the computer readable instructions, the computer readable instructions controlling the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving first data, second data, and third data;
generating a set of environment-level sustainability scores for an application using the first data, the second data, and the third data, wherein the set of environment-level sustainability scores corresponds to an environment of a group of environments of the application;
generating an application maturity score using the third data;
generating an application sustainability score using the set of environment-level sustainability scores for the application and the application maturity score;
generating a recommendation for the application based on the application sustainability score; and
initiating a modification to a datacenter of the application based on the recommendation for the application.
Claim 15:
A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving first data, second data, and third data;
generating a set of environment-level sustainability scores for an application using the first data, the second data, and the third data, wherein the set of environment-level sustainability scores corresponds to an environment of a group of environments of the application;
generating an application maturity score using the third data;
generating an application sustainability score using the set of environment-level sustainability scores for the application and the application maturity score;
generating a recommendation for the application based on the application sustainability score; and
initiating a modification to a datacenter of the application based on the recommendation for the application.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). Here, the non-underlined claim limitations above recite additional elements. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of computers, another technology, or a technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). The Specification does not assert that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. The claim does not purport to improve computer capabilities, but rather invokes computers merely as a tool by adding general purpose computers post-hoc to an abstract idea. A commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. The Specification and the claim language provide evidence that the focus of the claim is on a scheme. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Even if the Specification describes technical improvements, they are not claimed. The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). The additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). A general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. The additional elements do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)). The claim does not recite any transformation of an article where the article changes to a different state or thing. Nor do the additional elements apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way or impose a meaningful limit on it beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). The additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. A wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional feature that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself. The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are being used in their ordinary capacity. The additional elements do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). In Step 2B examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h); re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Here, the specification of the application indicates that additional elements are well-known or conventional (See Spec. 0033-0047, 0056, 0062, 0077, 0085, 0103-0105, 0110, 0119-0124). There is nothing in the specification to indicate that the operations recited in the claims require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more. The claims are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claim 2 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes application-based recommendations based on generated scoring, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0033-0047, 0056, 0062, 0077, 0085, 0103-0105, 0110, 0119-0124). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
the third data comprises application data; and
the generating the application maturity score using the application data further comprises using application maturity guidelines, contextual data from an industry of the application, and information for layers of the application from the application data.
Claim 3 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes application-based recommendations based on generated scoring, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0033-0047, 0056, 0062, 0077, 0085, 0103-0105, 0110, 0119-0124). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
the first data comprises computing infrastructure data, the second data comprises datacenter data, and the third data comprises application data;
the generating the set of environment-level sustainability scores for the application using the first data, the second data, and the third data further comprises:
obtaining a component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application, the component set comprising components of the application that are prone to carbon emissions and carbon emission percentages corresponding to the components of the application;
generating a component sustainability score for the components of the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application using the carbon emission percentages, available sustainable resources from the datacenter data, sustainability and emissions data from the datacenter data, and the application data; and
generating the set of environment-level sustainability scores for the application, wherein environment-level sustainability scores of the set of environment-level sustainability scores is generated using the component sustainability score for the components of the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application.
Claim 4 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes application-based recommendations based on generated scoring, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0033-0047, 0056, 0062, 0077, 0085, 0103-0105, 0110, 0119-0124). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the generating the set of environment-level sustainability scores for the application further comprises:
determining a weight to apply to the component sustainability score for the components of the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application based on a power consumption of the components of the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application; and
generating the set of environment-level sustainability scores by averaging the component sustainability score for the components of the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application.
Claim 5 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes application-based recommendations based on generated scoring, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0033-0047, 0056, 0062, 0077, 0085, 0103-0105, 0110, 0119-0124). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the obtaining the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application further comprises:
generating a knowledge graph using the application data; and
obtaining the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application by providing the knowledge graph, energy consumption metrics, carbon emission metrics, and location and cloud provider data to an artificial intelligence engine.
Claim 6 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes application-based recommendations based on generated scoring, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0033-0047, 0056, 0062, 0077, 0085, 0103-0105, 0110, 0119-0124). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the generating the application sustainability score using the set of environment-level sustainability scores for the application and the application maturity score further comprises averaging the application maturity score and each environment-level sustainability score of the set of environment-level sustainability scores.
Claim 7 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes application-based recommendations based on generated scoring, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0033-0047, 0056, 0062, 0077, 0085, 0103-0105, 0110, 0119-0124). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the recommendation is an anomaly detection and root cause analysis recommendation, a rightsizing recommendation, or a green resource alternative recommendation.
Claim 9 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes application-based recommendations based on generated scoring, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0033-0047, 0056, 0062, 0077, 0085, 0103-0105, 0110, 0119-0124). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
the third data comprises application data; and
operations for the generating the application maturity score using the application data further comprise
using application maturity guidelines, contextual data from an industry of the application, and information for layers of the application from the application data.
Claim 10 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes application-based recommendations based on generated scoring, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0033-0047, 0056, 0062, 0077, 0085, 0103-0105, 0110, 0119-0124). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
the first data comprises computing infrastructure data, the second data comprises datacenter data, and the third data comprises application data;
operations for the generating the set of environment-level sustainability scores for the application using the first data, the second data, and the third data further comprise:
obtaining a component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application, the component set comprising components of the application that are prone to carbon emissions and carbon emission percentages corresponding to the components of the application;
generating a component sustainability score for the components of the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application using the carbon emission percentages, available sustainable resources from the datacenter data, sustainability and emissions data from the datacenter data, and the application data; and
generating the set of environment-level sustainability scores for the application, wherein environment-level sustainability scores of the set of environment-level sustainability scores is generated using the component sustainability score for the components of the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application.
Claim 11 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes application-based recommendations based on generated scoring, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0033-0047, 0056, 0062, 0077, 0085, 0103-0105, 0110, 0119-0124). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the operations for the generating the set of environment-level sustainability scores for the application further comprise:
determining a weight to apply to the component sustainability score for the components of the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application based on a power consumption of the components of the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application; and
generating the set of environment-level sustainability scores by averaging the component sustainability score for the components of the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application.
Claim 12 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes application-based recommendations based on generated scoring, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0033-0047, 0056, 0062, 0077, 0085, 0103-0105, 0110, 0119-0124). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the operations for the obtaining the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application further comprise:
generating a knowledge graph using the application data; and
obtaining the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application by providing the knowledge graph, energy consumption metrics, carbon emission metrics, and location and cloud provider data to an artificial intelligence engine.
Claim 13 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes application-based recommendations based on generated scoring, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0033-0047, 0056, 0062, 0077, 0085, 0103-0105, 0110, 0119-0124). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the operations for the generating the application sustainability score using the set of environment-level sustainability scores for the application and the application maturity score further comprise
averaging the application maturity score and each environment-level sustainability score of the set of environment-level sustainability scores.
Claim 14 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes application-based recommendations based on generated scoring, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0033-0047, 0056, 0062, 0077, 0085, 0103-0105, 0110, 0119-0124). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the recommendation is an anomaly detection and root cause analysis recommendation, a rightsizing recommendation, or a green resource alternative recommendation.
Claim 16 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes application-based recommendations based on generated scoring, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0033-0047, 0056, 0062, 0077, 0085, 0103-0105, 0110, 0119-0124). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
the third data comprises application data; and
operations for the generating the application maturity score using the application data further comprise
using application maturity guidelines, contextual data from an industry of the application, and information for layers of the application from the application data.
Claim 17 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes application-based recommendations based on generated scoring, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0033-0047, 0056, 0062, 0077, 0085, 0103-0105, 0110, 0119-0124). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
the first data comprises computing infrastructure data, the second data comprises datacenter data, and the third data comprises application data;
operations for the generating the set of environment-level sustainability scores for the application using the first data, the second data, and the third data further comprise:
obtaining a component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application, the component set comprising components of the application that are prone to carbon emissions and carbon emission percentages corresponding to the components of the application;
generating a component sustainability score for the components of the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application using the carbon emission percentages, available sustainable resources from the datacenter data, sustainability and emissions data from the datacenter data, and the application data; and
generating the set of environment-level sustainability scores for the application, wherein environment-level sustainability scores of the set of environment-level sustainability scores is generated using the component sustainability score for the components of the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application.
Claim 18 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes application-based recommendations based on generated scoring, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0033-0047, 0056, 0062, 0077, 0085, 0103-0105, 0110, 0119-0124). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the operations for the generating the set of environment-level sustainability scores for the application further comprise:
determining a weight to apply to the component sustainability score for the components of the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application based on a power consumption of the components of the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application; and
generating the set of environment-level sustainability scores by averaging the component sustainability score for the components of the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application.
Claim 19 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes application-based recommendations based on generated scoring, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0033-0047, 0056, 0062, 0077, 0085, 0103-0105, 0110, 0119-0124). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the operations for the obtaining the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application further comprise:
generating a knowledge graph using the application data; and
obtaining the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application by providing the knowledge graph, energy consumption metrics, carbon emission metrics, and location and cloud provider data to an artificial intelligence engine.
Claim 20 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes application-based recommendations based on generated scoring, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0033-0047, 0056, 0062, 0077, 0085, 0103-0105, 0110, 0119-0124). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the operations for the generating the application sustainability score using the set of environment-level sustainability scores for the application and the application maturity score further comprise
averaging the application maturity score and each environment-level sustainability score of the set of environment-level sustainability scores.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2024/0394107 A1 (“Pignataro”).
Claims 1, 8, 15:
Pignataro discloses:
a memory having computer readable instructions; and one or more processors for executing the computer readable instructions, the computer readable instructions controlling the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: [A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:] (Fig.11, 0152-0175)
receiving first data, second data, and third data; (0004, 0016, 0101-0103, 0127-0129, 0132-0134)
generating a set of environment-level sustainability scores for an application using the first data, the second data, and the third data, wherein the set of environment-level sustainability scores corresponds to an environment of a group of environments of the application; (0006, 0018, 0100, 0134, 0142)
generating an application maturity score using the third data; (0005, 0103-0105, 0133)
generating an application sustainability score using the set of environment-level sustainability scores for the application and the application maturity score; (0006, 0018, 0134, 0142-0143, 0146)
generating a recommendation for the application based on the application sustainability score; and (0007, 0019, 0045, 0135-0138)
initiating a modification to a datacenter of the application based on the recommendation for the application. (0015-0016, 0020, 0042, 0045, 0113, 0148-0151)
Claims 3, 10 and 17:
Pignataro discloses all limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15. Pignataro further discloses:
the first data comprises computing infrastructure data, the second data comprises datacenter data, and the third data comprises application data; (0102-0102, 0128-0129, 0134)
the generating the set of environment-level sustainability scores for the application using the first data, the second data, and the third data further comprises: obtaining a component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application, the component set comprising components of the application that are prone to carbon emissions and carbon emission percentages corresponding to the components of the application; (0065-0067, 0070)
generating a component sustainability score for the components of the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application using the carbon emission percentages, available sustainable resources from the datacenter data, sustainability and emissions data from the datacenter data, and the application data; and (0067, 0070, 0104, 0134, 0142)
generating the set of environment-level sustainability scores for the application, wherein environment-level sustainability scores of the set of environment-level sustainability scores is generated using the component sustainability score for the components of the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application. (0134, 0142-0143)
Claims 4, 11 and 18:
Pignataro discloses all limitations of claims 3, 10 and 17. Pignataro further discloses:
wherein the generating the set of environment-level sustainability scores for the application further comprises: determining a weight to apply to the component sustainability score for the components of the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application based on a power consumption of the components of the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application; and (0047, 0108, 0116-0117)
generating the set of environment-level sustainability scores by averaging the component sustainability score for the components of the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application. (0106-0107)
Claims 6, 13 and 20:
Pignataro discloses all limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15. Pignataro further discloses:
wherein the generating the application sustainability score using the set of environment-level sustainability scores for the application and the application maturity score further comprises averaging the application maturity score and each environment-level sustainability score of the set of environment-level sustainability scores. (0106-0107, 0143)
Claims 7 and 14:
Pignataro discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 8. Pignataro further discloses:
wherein the recommendation is an anomaly detection and root cause analysis recommendation, a rightsizing recommendation, or a green resource alternative recommendation. (0021-0023, 0044-0045, 0113, 0124)
Claims Free of Art
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are free of art. Pignataro teaches:
the third data comprises application data; and (0102, 0129, 0134)
Therefore, the prior art does not teach, neither singly nor in combination the following:
the generating the application maturity score using the application data further comprises using application maturity guidelines, contextual data from an industry of the application, and information for layers of the application from the application data.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are free of art. The prior art does not teach, neither singly nor in combination the following:
wherein the obtaining the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application further comprises: generating a knowledge graph using the application data; and obtaining the component set that corresponds to the environment from the group of environments of the application by providing the knowledge graph, energy consumption metrics, carbon emission metrics, and location and cloud provider data to an artificial intelligence engine.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0138072 A1 ("Chonkar") discloses: A method includes receiving, from a first remote device, an initial first plurality of status metrics corresponding to a first domain, each of the initial plurality of status metrics indicating whether a corresponding parameter of the first domain requires remediation. The method includes comparing the initial plurality of status metrics to a reference database, the reference database listing previously encountered problems with known remediation solutions. The method includes receiving from the first remote device, an updated plurality of status metrics corresponding the first domain, each of the updated plurality of status metrics indicating whether a corresponding parameter of the first domain requires remediation. The method includes applying an algorithm to the updated plurality of status metrics to generate a maturity score of the first domain. The method includes combining the maturity score of the first domain and a maturity score of a second domain to generate a maturity report.
US 2022/0035674 A1 ("Sharma") discloses: Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media, for generating customized recommendations for environmentally-conscious cloud computing frameworks for replacing computing resources of existing datacenters. One of the methods involves receiving, through a user interface presented on a display of a computing device, data regarding a user's existing datacenter deployment and the user's preferences for the new cloud computing framework, generating one or more recommendations for environmentally-conscious cloud computing frameworks based on the received data, and presenting such recommendations through the user interface for the user's review and consideration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ari Shahabi whose telephone number is (571)272-2565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. 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.
/ARI SHAHABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights