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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the application filed on November 15, 2024.
2. Claims 1-23 have been examined.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 19 is objected to and considered to read as:
The method of claim 10, further comprising: providing the deployment data structure to a computing environment management system for deployment of [[the]] a desired computing environment.
4. Claim 21 is objected to and considered to read as:
The method of claim 20, wherein said generating the deployment data structure includes: comparing [[the]] a deployment pattern defined by the deployment data structure against a library of pre-approved patterns.
5. Claim 22 is objected to and considered to read as:
The method of claim 10, wherein said generating the deployment data structure includes: comparing [[the]] a deployment pattern defined by the deployment data structure against a pre-defined deployment policies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 10, and 23 are within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Prong 1, Step 2A: under its broadest reasonable interpretation, “receive, from a user, a natural language description of a target computing environment; generate a follow-up question to the user regarding a requirement of the target computing environment; and transform the natural language description and a response to the follow-up question to a prompt for a generative model, the prompt requesting a deployment data structure defining deployment parameters of the target computing environment” cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processing device. Thus these claim limitations fall within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Prong 2, Step 2A: the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements (computer-implemented system, processing subsystem, processors, memories, computer-readable medium, processing system) are recited at high level of generality. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(g).
Prong 2, Step 2B: the additional elements, considering them both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. As discussed above, elements that are mere use of generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, and the processes are insignificant extra-solution activity which are recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, according to MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 4: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 5: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 6: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 7: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 8: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 9: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 11: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 13: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 14: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 15: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 16: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 17: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 18: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 19: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 20: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 21: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 22: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
8. 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 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 of this title, 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.
9. Claims 1, 5-8, 10, 14-16, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/ 0019419 to Jonna et al. (hereafter “Jonna”) in view of US 2026/0161721 to Shrivastava et al. (hereafter “Shrivastava”).
Claim 1.
Jonna discloses a computer-implemented system for automated deployment of a computing environment, the system comprising: a processing subsystem that includes one or more processors and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors, the processing subsystem configured to cause the system to:
receive, from a user, a natural language description of a target computing environment (0003, 0005-0008, 0065);
generate a follow-up question to the user regarding a requirement of the target computing environment (0064, 0072, 0097); and
requesting a deployment data structure (request to generate/create a deployment script, 0032, 0067, 0072, 0087, 0097)
defining deployment parameters of the target computing environment (0010, 0011, 0095, 0098, 0099).
Jonna discloses natural language synthesis, machine-learning process, feedback, and natural language processing but does not disclose transform the natural language description and a response to the follow-up question to a prompt for a generative model.
However, Shrivastava discloses transform the natural language description and a response to the follow-up question to a prompt for a generative model (0062, 0100, 0119).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shrivastava’s teaching into Jonna‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to further tailor recommendations and provide improved prompt element suggestions as suggested by Shrivastava (0062, 0100).
Claim 5.
Jonna discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the target computing environment is one of: a cloud environment, a programmatically-deployable environment, or an on-premise environment (0014, 0032, 0037, 0043).
Claim 6.
Jonna discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the processing subsystem is further configured to cause the system to provide the deployment data structure to a computing environment management system for deployment of the target computing environment (0078-0080).
Claim 7.
Jonna discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the generative model includes a transformer model (0057, 0059, 0063, 0064).
Claim 8.
Jonna discloses the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the deployment data structure is in a human-readable format (0034).
Claim 10.
This claim is a method version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 1, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
Claim 14.
This claim is a method version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 5, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
Claim 15.
This claim is a method version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 6, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
Claim 16.
Jonna does not disclose the method of claim 10, further comprising: generating a plurality of follow-up questions.
However, Shrivastava discloses generating a plurality of follow-up questions (0062, 0100).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shrivastava’s teaching into Jonna‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to further tailor recommendations and provide improved prompt element suggestions as suggested by Shrivastava (0062, 0100).
Claim 19.
This claim is a method version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 6, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
Claim 23.
This claim is a method version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 1, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
10. Claim 2, 4, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonna in view of Shrivastava, and further in view of US 2024/0362409 to Kuan (hereafter “Kuan”).
Claim 2.
Jonna and Shrivastava do not disclose the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the generative model includes a large language model (LLM), and the processing subsystem comprises a LLM controller configured to generate the prompt for the LLM based on an input template file.
However, Kuan discloses the generative model includes a large language model (LLM), and the processing subsystem comprises a LLM controller configured to generate the prompt for the LLM based on an input template file (0056, 0057, 0059, 0065).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kuan’s teaching into Jonna and Shrivastava‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a best suited prompt/template for user input as suggested by Kuan (0031, 0056).
Claim 4.
Jonna and Shrivastava do not disclose the computer-implemented system of claim 2, wherein the LLM controller comprises a multi-agent controller configured to, in an iterative process, generate a sequence of questions to the user based on the input template file and one or more responses from the user.
However, Kuan discloses the LLM controller comprises a multi-agent controller configured to, in an iterative process, generate a sequence of questions to the user based on the input template file and one or more responses from the user (0065, 0072, 0089, 0090, 0091).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kuan’s teaching into Jonna and Shrivastava‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a best suited prompt/template for user input as suggested by Kuan (0031, 0056).
Claim 11.
This claim is a method version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 2, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
11. Claim 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonna in view of Shrivastava, and further in view of US 2008/0306798 to Anke et al. (hereafter “Anke”).
Claim 9.
Jonna and Shrivastava do not disclose the computer-implemented system of claim 1, wherein the processing subsystem is further configured to cause the system to: compare an estimated cost for the deployment of the target computing environment to a predefined cost threshold; and when the estimated cost is within the predefined cost threshold, cause a computing environment management system to deploy the target computing environment based on the deployment data structure.
However Anke discloses compare an estimated cost for the deployment of the target computing environment to a predefined cost threshold; and when the estimated cost is within the predefined cost threshold, cause a computing environment management system to deploy the target computing environment based on the deployment data structure (0082, 0100).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Anke’s teaching into Jonna and Shrivastava‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to select a highest ranking deployment plan as suggested by Anke (0082).
Claim 18.
This claim is a method version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 9, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
12. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonna in view of Shrivastava, and further in view of US 2019/0378506 to Garikapati et al. (hereafter “Garikapati”).
Claim 17.
Jonna and Shrivastava do not disclose the method of claim 16, wherein the plurality of follow-up questions include a sequence of questions, wherein a subsequent question in the sequence of questions is generated based on the user's response to a prior question in the sequence of questions.
However, Garikapati discloses the plurality of follow-up questions include a sequence of questions, wherein a subsequent question in the sequence of questions is generated based on the user's response to a prior question in the sequence of questions (0073).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Garikapati’s teaching into Jonna and Shrivastava‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to keep or discard context based on user interactions as suggested by Garikapati (0073).
13. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonna in view of Shrivastava, and further in view of US 2025/0130926 to Winkler et al. (hereafter “Winkler”).
Claim 20.
Jonna and Shrivastava do not disclose the method of claim 11, further comprising: generating the deployment data structure using the generative model.
However, Garikapati discloses generating the deployment data structure using the generative model (FIG.2 and related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Garikapati’s teaching into Jonna and Shrivastava‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to receive a query of the script code as suggested by Winkler (FIG.1 and related text).
14. Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonna in view of Shrivastava, and further in view of US 2019/0138711 to Yaffe et al. (hereafter “Yaffe”).
Claim 21.
Jonna and Shrivastava do not disclose the method of claim 20, wherein said generating the deployment data structure includes: comparing the deployment pattern defined by the deployment data structure against a library of pre-approved patterns.
However, Yaffe discloses comparing the deployment pattern defined by the deployment data structure against a library of pre-approved patterns (0121).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yaffe’s teaching into Jonna and Shrivastava‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to check the script before loading it as suggested by Yaffe (0121).
Claim 22.
Jonna and Shrivastava do not disclose the method of claim 10, wherein said generating the deployment data structure includes: comparing the deployment pattern defined by the deployment data structure against a pre-defined deployment policies.
However, Yaffe discloses comparing the deployment pattern defined by the deployment data structure against a pre-defined deployment policies (0121, rules/policies in the approved script).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yaffe’s teaching into Jonna and Shrivastava‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to check the script before loading it as suggested by Yaffe (0121).
Allowable Subject Matter
15. After search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that dependent claim 3 is not taught by any prior reference found through search.
The primary reason for allowance of the claims in this case, is the inclusion of the limitations “The computer-implemented system of claim 2, wherein the LLM controller is configured to: generate the follow-up question based on the input template file; generate the prompt based on the input template file; send the prompt to the LLM for requesting the deployment data structure defining deployment parameters of the target computing environment; and upon receipt of an output file comprising the deployment data structure from the LLM, send the output file to a computing environment management system for deployment of the target computing environment” which are not found in the prior art of record.
Incorporating intervening claim 2 and claim 3 into claims 1, 10, and 23 would put the case in condition for allowance.
Claim 12 is similar to claim 3 and is also allowable.
Claim 13 depends on claim 12 and is also allowable.
Conclusion
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to examiner Thuy (Twee) Dao, whose telephone/fax numbers are (571) 272 8570 and (571) 273 8570, respectively. Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday, 5:30am - 2:00pm ET.
If attempts to reach Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Hyung (Sam) Sough, can be reached at (571) 272 6799.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature of relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272 2100.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Thuy Dao/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights