DETAILED ACTION
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax, Regular postal mail, or EFS Web (PTO/SB/439).
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 .
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.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1,3-7,9-12,14-17 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 1, 12, and 20, recite “system level action” however that term is not mentioned in the specification, and there does not appear to be any support for the subject matter.
Claims 3-7, 9-11, 14-17, 19, 21-23 are rejected based on dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1,3-7,9,12,14-17 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, 12, and 20, recite “system level action” however that term is not mentioned in the specification, and it is not clear what applicant intends as a system level action, thus, the metes and bounds of the terms is not clear.
Claims 3-7, 9-11, 14-17, 19, 21-23 are rejected based on dependency.
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, 3-7, 9-12, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Regarding claim 12 this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP §2106.03. The claim recites method steps; thus, the claim is directed to a process which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The limitations “analyzing resource consumption data to identify at least one emerging resource requester based on an increase of resource consumption of the at least one emerging resource requester;
generating, based on the analyzing, at least one trigger category defining a condition under which provision of computing resources by the computer system to a resource requester included in the at least one trigger category results in execution of at least one system level action, the at least one trigger category associating the at least one emerging resource requester with at least one other resource requester that shares a common characteristic associated with the at least one trigger category;
monitoring resource consumption data in real-time to identify resources being provide to at least one resource requester of the at least one trigger category” as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong 2, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
In this case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements:
“receiving, via a communications module and from a computing device, a request to present the at least one trigger category; and
sending, via the communications module and to the computing device, a signal causing the computing device to display an interface that includes a selectable option to accept the at least one trigger category;
receiving, via the communications module and from the computing device, a signal indicating selection of the selectable option to accept the at least one trigger category”
The additional elements fail to meaningfully limit the claim because it only amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of data input and output (i.e. receive a request, display an interface). See MPEP 2106.05(g). This additional element do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, because it is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
The additional elements:
“during execution of the processor-executable instructions,” “a communications module and from a computing device” and “an interface that includes a selectable option” fails to meaningfully limit the claim because the elements are generic computing instructions that tie it to a generic computing component, thus not practical application under prong 2. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “during execution of the processor-executable instructions,” “a communications module and from a computing device” and “an interface that includes a selectable option” are merely a generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception which cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims include additional elements
“receiving, via a communications module and from a computing device, a request to present the at least one trigger category; sending, via the communications module and to the computing device, a signal causing the computing device to display an interface that includes a selectable option to accept the at least one trigger category”
that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it only amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of data input and output (i.e. receive a request, display an interface). See MPEP 2106.05(g). This additional element does not recite significantly more than a judicial exception, because it is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
Claim 1, is a system claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 12. In particular, the claim recites additional elements –a communications module, and a processor coupled with the communications module; and a memory coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions--. The module, processor, and memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. generic) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 3, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the at least one action includes: determining an amount of a first type of resources provided to the at least one resource requester of the at least one trigger category; and providing an amount of a second type of resources to at least one resource collector.” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because the step is still drawn to an abstract idea. That is, the limitations as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 4, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the amount of the second type of resources provided to the at least one resource collector is determined based on a modifier between the first type of resources and the second type of resources” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because the step is still drawn to an abstract idea. That is, the limitations as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 5, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the modifier is associated with the at least one trigger category.” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because the step is still drawn to an abstract idea. That is, the limitations as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 6, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the at least one action includes: applying a modifier to resources provided to the at least one resource requester of the at least one trigger category” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because the step is still drawn to an abstract idea. That is, the limitations as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 7, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the at least one action includes: reducing an amount of resources provided to at least one resource requester that is not included in the at least one trigger category” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because the step is still drawn to an abstract idea. That is, the limitations as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 9, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further configure the processor to: responsive to receiving the request to present the at least one trigger category, select the at least one trigger category based on a user of the computing device sharing the common characteristic with the at least one trigger category.” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because the step is still drawn to an abstract idea. That is, the limitations as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 10, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein when identifying the at least one emerging resource requester, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further configure the processor to: determine, from the resource consumption data, an increased rate of resource consumption of the at least one emerging resource requester.” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because the step is still drawn to an abstract idea. That is, the limitations as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 11, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the resource consumption data includes resource consumption data obtained from a plurality of computing devices and stored in a database” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because the step is still drawn to an abstract idea. The additional elements of obtaining data from a database are recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
Claims 14-17, 19 are dependent claims rejected for the same reasons as claims 3-5, 7, and 10 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 20, is rejected for the same reasons as claim 12. In particular, the claim recites two additional elements – computer readable storage medium--. The medium is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic medium comprising instructions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 21, is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the at least one trigger category includes at least one priority resource requester and the system-level action includes reducing an amount of resources provided to a non-priority resource requester to increase the amount of resources available to the at least one priority resource requester” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because the step is still drawn to an abstract idea. That is, the limitations as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Regarding claim 22, is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein when identifying the at least one emerging resource requester, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further configure the processor to: determine a current amount of resource consumption associated with a resource requester; determine an average amount of resource consumption associated with the resource requester; and identify the resource requester as the at least one emerging resource requester when the current amount exceeds the average amount by at least a threshold amount.” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because the step is still drawn to an abstract idea. That is, the limitations as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Regarding claim 23, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as 22 and is rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-12, 14-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littlefield et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2019/0196421) in view of Ouyang et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2015/0085057).
Regarding claim 1, Littlefield teaches a computer server system comprising:
a communications module (see ¶ [0085] “The information may then be provided to another device or computer based on any of a variety of methods, including being sent as part of a header during a communication, sent upon request, or others”);
a processor coupled with the communications module (see Fig. 3, 302 Processor); and
a memory coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the processor (see Fig. 3, 310 Data Storage), configure the processor to:
analyze resource consumption data during execution of the processor-executable instructions to identify at least one emerging resource requester (see ¶ [0087] “Likewise, in some of the various embodiments, virtual machines or virtual servers dedicated to resource classification engine 318, resource recipe generation engine 322, consumption control engine 324, or metrics analysis engine 326 may be provisioned and de-commissioned automatically.” ¶ [0128] “In some of the various embodiments, metrics analysis engine 414 may analyze metrics associated with multiple active or completed control sessions and provide the results of the analysis to consumption control engine 412.” see ¶ [0152] “In some embodiments, initializing the control session may begin with the agent, an entity that supervises the agent, the performance monitor, or others communicating one or more requests over one or more networks to a resource consumption control computer. In some embodiments, the request may be provided via a user interface (for example, a web page, application, or others) in various forms, such as email, user interface (UI) notification, instant message, or others.” See ¶ [0093] “In some of the various embodiments, the one or more assigned performance monitors may take one or more actions on behalf of the agent, such as providing one or more portions of the request, providing one or more portions of the initialization information, associating the agent with one or more other agents, associating the agent with the entity, or others.”)
based on an increase of resource consumption of the at least one emerging resource requestor (see ¶[0121] “In one or more of the various embodiments, the one or more performance monitors assigned to the agent may monitor one or more of the agent's actions, such as the agent's adherence to or divergence from the resource consumption control instructions, adherence to or divergence from the modified resource consumption control instructions, accuracy of recording resource consumption information, activities (for example, training, exercise, or others), impairment status, or others.” and “In some embodiments, the dashboard may display one or more flags when one or more portions of the monitor information associated with the agent diverge beyond a threshold from an expected value, from average monitor information of the multiple agents, from one or more historical trends associated with the agent, or others.” See ¶ [0101] “As another example, an upper threshold for the predicted energy consumption needs amount may include a predetermined amount of energy (for example, 4 kJ, 1,000 calories, or others) over the predicted interval energy expenditure amount, a predetermined amount of energy (for example, 2 kJ, 500 calories, or others) over the predicted interval energy expenditure amount if the agent's activity rating is less than a predetermined threshold, or others.”);
generate, based on the analyzing, at least one trigger category (see ¶ [0095] “In some embodiments, resource consumption control computer 406 may generate one or more agent data objects associated with the agent based on the agent characteristics information, such as one or more tables having records and attributes with associated fields that contain values that define, represent, or include one or more portions of the agent characteristics information.” See ¶ [00208] “At block 1304, in one or more of the various embodiments, one or more agent data objects associated with the agent may be generated based on one or more portions of the agent characterization information. In some of the various embodiments, the one or more agent data objects may be generated or populated as described with regard to one or more processes of system 400” see ¶[0209] “At block 1306, in one or more of the various embodiments, a group status of the agent may be evaluated based on one or more portions of the agent characterization information. In some of the various embodiments, one or more portions of the agent characteristics information may be provided in a comma-separated values (CSV) file that includes one or more portions of agent characteristics information associated with multiple agents in one or more groups”);
defining a condition under which provision of computing resources by the computer system to a resource requester included in the at least one trigger category (see ¶[0096] “In one or more of the various embodiments, resource consumption control computer 406 may evaluate one or more conditions of one or more candidate performance models based on one or more portions of the agent characteristics information included in the one or more agent data objects associated with the agent. In some of the various embodiments, each candidate performance model may be associated with one or more agent characteristics or conditions, such as one or more ranges, thresholds, or others for one or more parameters associated with agent characteristics” see ¶[0118] “In some of the various embodiments, controlling one or more agents 402 may include providing the modified resource consumption instructions, thereby facilitating causing one or more client computers, such as one or more client computers 200 (for example, one or more client computers 102-105 or others) associated with or included in one or more agents 402 to perform one or more actions in accordance with the one or more modified resource consumption instructions, such as one or more of the following: causing one or more agents 402 or one or more components of one or more agents 402 to intake or consume one or more resources, amounts of resources, resource recipes, resource types, or others; causing one or more projectors 246, displays 250, audio interfaces 256, haptic interfaces 264, or others to provide one or more outputs (for example, displays, audio notifications, haptic notifications, or others) of one or more instructions, recommendations, interface components, alerts, or others (for example, when one or more applications 220 are next launched, downloaded, opened, or otherwise engaged, when the one or more modified resource instructions are obtained by client computer 200, or others); or others.”), the at least one trigger category associating the at least one emerging resource requester with at least one other resource requester that shares a common characteristic associated with the at least one trigger category (see ¶ [0123] “In some embodiments, one or more conditions of the selected resource type may be evaluated based on one or more portions of the resource characteristics information. In some embodiments, each resource type may have one or more conditions that, if satisfied, indicate that the one or more portions of the resource characteristics information may match with the resource type”);
receive, via the communications module and from a computing device, a request to present the at least one trigger category (see ¶ [0123] “In one or more of the various embodiments, each resource may be classified as being of a resource type. In some of the various embodiments, each resource may have one or more characteristics associated with multiple resource types, and the resource may be classified to one of the multiple resource types based on one or more models, model portions, sub-models, conditions, or others. In some embodiments, one or more conditions of the selected resource type may be evaluated based on one or more portions of the resource characteristics information.”); and
send, via the communications module and to the computing device, a signal causing the computing device to display an interface that includes a selectable option to accept the at least one trigger category (see ¶[0121] “In some embodiments, the dashboard may display averages of monitor information associated with the multiple agents, one or more sub-groups within the multiple agents (for example, athletes of a particular gender or others), or others. In some embodiments, the dashboard may display percentages associated with the monitor information, such as the percent of agents in the multiple agents that are meeting their intake needs (for example, protein intake needs or others), engaging in intake sessions between particular hours, above or below their intake needs, engaging in their typical activities, or others” see ¶ [0126] “In one or more of the various embodiments, one or more portions of the resource characteristics information of each resource in the recipe may be evaluated to select one or more resource consumption or intake phases to associate with the recipe. In some of the various embodiments, each phase associated with each of the resources in the recipe may be selected.”);
receive, via the communications module and from the computing device, a signal indicating selection of the selectable option to accept the at least one trigger category (see ¶ [0103] “In some embodiments, one or more portions of agent characteristics information employed to select the one or more selected-model portions or sub-models may also be input into the one or more selected portions or sub-models to generate the predicted baseline energy expenditure rate” see ¶[0138] “In some of the various embodiments, employing another engine to perform an action may include providing one or more instructions, portions of information (for examples, one or more portions of one or more inputs to one or more models, model portions, sub-models, or others), signals, or others to the other engine, thereby facilitating the other engine performing the action and, optionally, obtaining one or more instructions, portions of information, signals, or others from the other engine based on the other engine performing the action.”);
monitor resource consumption data in real-time to identify resources being provided to at least one resource requester of the at least one trigger category (see ¶ [0064] “Input/output interface 238 may also include one or more sensors for determining geolocation information (e.g., GPS), monitoring electrical power conditions (e.g., voltage sensors, current sensors, frequency sensors, and so on), monitoring weather (e.g., thermostats, barometers, anemometers, humidity detectors, precipitation scales, or others), or others. Sensors may be one or more hardware sensors that collect or measure data that is external to client computer 200.” See ¶[0107] “In some embodiments, the resource intake frequency or resource intake type may have predetermined default values or may be set by the agent, the performance monitor, or others. In some embodiments, the one or more model portions or sub-models used to generate the resource distribution information may be selected based on one or more portions of the agent characteristics information (for example, resource intake frequency, resource intake type, or others). In other embodiments, the one or more selected-model portions or sub-models employed to generate the normalized-units needs amounts for the one or more first or additional resource types may be selected arbitrarily or may be selected for all agents. In some embodiments, one or more portions of agent characteristics information employed to select the one or more selected-model portions or sub-models may also be input into the one or more selected portions or sub-models to generate the resource distribution information.” See ¶ [0121] “In some embodiments, the monitor information in the dashboard may be updated in real time, such as when the information is obtained from agent, when the information is processed by resource consumption control computer 406, or others”).
Littlefield do not expressly disclose, however, Ouyang teaches
results in execution of at least one system level action (see ¶[0045] “More formally, the embodiment of FIG. 5 includes two triggers, a low-battery event trigger (A) and a confirmation dialog trigger (B). The condition for entering a reduced-functionality state (R) may include a Boolean logic function of these two values, such as R=A.times.B.” and ¶[0046] “FIG. 6 is a flow diagram of signal traffic between CCS 932 operating on mobile device 12b and VCS 44 in connection with the method described more fully in FIG. 8. In block 610, CCS 932 receives a trigger from mobile device 12bh. In block 620, responsive to the trigger, CCS 932 sends a signal to VCS 44 requesting a reduced functionality state, such as blocking a shared desktop video stream. In some embodiments, VCS 44 may notify other endpoints that mobile device 12b is entering a reduced-functionality state. In block 630, VCS 44 sends a modified data stream that includes an audio stream but not a video stream. In block 632, CCS 932 receives a countertrigger, and in block 640 sends a request to VCS 44 requesting that the higher-functionality audio and video streams be restored. In some embodiments, VCS 44 may notify other endpoints that mobile device 12b has restored a higher-functionality state”)
responsive to identifying resources being provided to at least one resource requester of the at least one trigger category, trigger the at least one system-level action (see ¶ [0019] “Responsive to the trigger, or a combination of triggers, the mobile device may switch from a higher-functionality state to a reduced-functionality state to conserve resources that may be scarce for the mobile client relative to a desktop client.” And ¶ [0022] “Non-limiting examples of actions that may be taken responsive to a trigger include disabling a video stream, disabling a camera, disabling a shared desktop, disabling audio, reducing audio volume, reducing audio bandwidth, reducing video bandwidth, reducing video frame rate, reducing screen brightness, compressing audio, compressing video, entering passive mode, and entering inactive mode.” See ¶ [0103] “In one or more of the various embodiments, one or more consumption control engines 412, prediction engines 416, or others may execute one or more portions of the one or more selected performance models or one or more sub-models within the one or more selected performance models to generate specific-units needs amounts for multiple resource types (for example, one or more gasolines, fuel stabilizers, oil additives, proteins, carbohydrates, fats, vegetables, or others) based on the predicted energy consumption needs amount and one or more portions of the agent characteristics information. In some of the various embodiments, the specific-units needs amounts for the multiple resource types may be independently or discretely generated for each interval (for example, another set of specific-units needs amounts for the multiple resource types may be generated for each interval or others). In other embodiments, the specific-units needs amounts for the multiple resource types may be employed for each interval in one or more periods (for example, a set of specific-units needs amounts for the multiple resource types may be generated for each period, with each interval in the period being assigned the same specific-units needs amounts for the multiple resource types, or others)”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Littlefield by adapting Ouyang to better provide for resource management and performance (see ¶ [0020] of Ouyang).
Regarding claim 3, Littlefield teaches wherein the at least one action includes: determining an amount of a first type of resources provided to the at least one resource requester of the at least one trigger category; and providing an amount of a second type of resources to at least one resource collector (see ¶ [0033] “In some embodiments, the metrics may indicate reportedly consumed amounts of specific units of the multiple resource types in multiple intervals and may include performance feedback that indicates a value of a measured change in an agent characteristic”).
Regarding claim 4, Littlefield teaches wherein the amount of the second type of resources provided to the at least one resource collector is determined based on a modifier between the first type of resources and the second type of resources (see ¶ [0107] “In other embodiments, the normalized-units needs amounts for each resource type may be distributed more heavily among the expected number of resource intakes of one or more resource intake types (for example, standard complete tank refills, pre-activity complete tank refills, standard meals, pre-workout meals, or others) than the expected number of resource intakes of another one or more resource intake types (for example, standard partial rank refills, pre-activity partial tank refills, standard snacks, pre-workout snacks, or others). For example, the normalized-units needs amount for protein may be weighted (for example, multiplied by 0.75 or others) and may be divided by the expected number of meals per day to generate the distributed normalized-units meals needs amount for protein, and the normalized-units needs amount for protein may be less heavily weighted (for example, multiplied by 0.25 or others) and may be divided by the expected number of snacks per day to generate a distributed normalized-units snacks needs amount for protein. In some embodiments, the resource distribution information may additionally or alternatively represent or include the specific-units needs distributed among the expected number of resource intakes”).
Regarding claim 5, Littlefield teaches wherein the modifier is associated with the at least one trigger category (see ¶ [0107] “In other embodiments, the normalized-units needs amounts for each resource type may be distributed more heavily among the expected number of resource intakes of one or more resource intake types (for example, standard complete tank refills, pre-activity complete tank refills, standard meals, pre-workout meals, or others) than the expected number of resource intakes of another one or more resource intake types (for example, standard partial rank refills, pre-activity partial tank refills, standard snacks, pre-workout snacks, or others).”).
Regarding claim 6, Littlefield teaches wherein the at least one action includes: applying a modifier to resources provided to the at least one resource requester of the at least one trigger category (see ¶ [0113] “In some of the various embodiments, the total reported interval average amounts of normalized units for a consumed resource type may be multiplied by a conversion factor associated with the consumed resource type (for example, the total number of reportedly consumed carbohydrate servings multiplied by the average number of grams per serving of carbohydrates or others), and the result may be summed with the number of specific units for the consumed resource type that are expected to be included in the total reported interval average amounts of normalized units for each other consumed resource type”).
Regarding claim 7, Littlefield teaches wherein the at least one action includes: reducing an amount of resources provided to at least one resource requester that is not included in the at least one trigger category (see ¶[0119] “In some of the various embodiments, modifying the predicted interval energy expenditure amount in a control session for an agent (or the modified predicted interval energy expenditure amount if system 400 has been calibrated one or more times in the control session for the agent) by reducing the predicted interval energy expenditure amount may reduce the magnitude of the one or more outputs and may increase the objective performance of the agent (for example, weight loss), thereby increasing the performance criterion of the value of the correlation coefficient and the performance criterion of the absolute value of the correlation coefficient (for example, bringing the value of the correlation coefficient closer to positive one)”).
Regarding claim 9, Littlefield teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further configure the processor to: responsive to receiving the request to present the at least one trigger category, select the at least one trigger category based on a user of the computing device sharing the common characteristic with the at least one trigger category (see ¶ [0123] “In some embodiments, one or more conditions of the selected resource type may be evaluated based on one or more portions of the resource characteristics information. In some embodiments, each resource type may have one or more conditions that, if satisfied, indicate that the one or more portions of the resource characteristics information may match with the resource type”).
Regarding claim 11, Littlefield teaches wherein the resource consumption data includes resource consumption data obtained from a plurality of computing devices and stored in a database (see ¶ [0085] “Data storage 310 may include, for example, demographics information 312, resource information 314, metrics information 316, or others. Demographics information 312 may include information indicative of characteristics, historical resource consumption, historical performance, or others associated with one or more geographical regions, control sessions, agents, entities associated with one or more agents, populations of agents, groups within the one or more populations of agents, or others.”).
Regarding claim 12, is an independent method claim corresponding to system claim 1 above and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13-17, are dependent method claims, corresponding to system claims 2-5, 7 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, is an independent medium claim corresponding to system claim 1 above and is rejected for the same reasons. In addition, Littlefield teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions (see ¶ [0047] computer readable media).
Regarding claim 22, Littlefield teaches wherein when identifying the at least one emerging resource requester, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further configure the processor to: determine a current amount of resource consumption associated with a resource requester (see ¶ [0065] “As another example, the one or more images of resources captured by camera 240 may be communicated over one or more networks to one or more other computers (for example, one or more network computers 300, performance monitors 404, resource consumption control computers 406, or others) to generate the one or more values that represent one or more resource types or resource amounts consumed by the user or equipment, either based on image recognition processes or user inputs to one or more user interface components based on one or more displays displaying one or more portions of the one or more images.”);
determine an average amount of resource consumption associated with the resource requester (see ¶ [0219] “In some of the various embodiments, an expected number of normalized units per a predetermined number of specific units may be based on historical analysis provided by a third party, average sample analysis, user input, or others. In some embodiments, the energy source information may be employed to generate the number of normalized units per number of specific units. In other embodiments, the number of normalized units per number of specific units may be standard based on the average or expected number for the matched resource type (for example, 25 grams of a resource that is a resource type of protein may equate to one serving of protein or others)”); and identify the resource requester as the at least one emerging resource requester when the current amount exceeds the average amount by at least a threshold amount (see ¶ [0184] “At decision block 1106, in one or more of the various embodiments, if metrics have been obtained for a predetermined number of qualifying periods (for example, two qualifying periods or others) have been obtained, control may flow to block 1108; otherwise, control may flow to block 1104. In some of the various embodiments, a qualifying period may be defined as a set of a predetermined number of back-to-back intervals (for example, 4-7 back-to-back days or others) in which the number of complete intervals meets or exceeds a minimum threshold (for example, four or more complete intervals or others). In some embodiments, a complete interval may be defined as an interval for which resource consumption information has been obtained for each intake during the interval (for example, discretely, in total, or others) and for which objective performance information has been obtained for the interval. In some embodiments, an interval may be indicated as complete based on one or more user inputs confirming that the interval is complete. In some embodiments, a qualifying period may include one or more incomplete intervals (for example, an interval for which resource consumption information has not been obtained for one or more intakes during the interval or for which objective performance information has not been obtained for the interval) between two complete intervals in the qualifying period.”).
Regarding claim 23, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as 22 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littlefield et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2019/0196421) in view of Ouyang et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2015/0085057), as applied to claim 1 and 12 above, further in view of Morgan (U.S. PG PUB 2012/0304191).
Regarding claim 10, Littlefield and Ouyang do not expressly disclose, however, Morgan teaches wherein when identifying the at least one emerging resource requester, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further configure the processor to: determine, from the resource consumption data, an increased rate of resource consumption of the at least one emerging resource requester (see ¶[0004] “In terms of the management of a set of virtual machines operated by a user in a cloud, at times the user's consumption of resources in the cloud can vary and/or spike, at different times and/or under different conditions. Since in one regard consumption spikes may entail enhanced or increased subscription costs to the user, that user may wish to consider rolling their executing workload over to federated backup clouds, or to migrate the workload to an entirely new host cloud.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Littlefield and Ouyang by adapting Morgan to manage resource consumption (see ¶ [0004] of Morgan).
Regarding claim 19, is a method claim corresponding to system claim 10, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littlefield et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2019/0196421) in view of Ouyang et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2015/0085057), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Zhao (U.S. PG PUB 2016/0232640).
Regarding claim 21, Littlefield and Ouyang do not expressly disclose, however, Zhao teaches wherein the at least one trigger category includes at least one priority resource requester and the system-level action includes reducing an amount of resources provided to a non-priority resource requester to increase the amount of resources available to the at least one priority resource requester (see ¶[0043] “ For example, when the computational resources are constrained, the resource management device can prioritize the allocation of computational resources for application programs that have high priority and high real-time requirements to let those application programs receive computational resources from the GPU first. The resource management device can also postpone the allocation of computational resources for application programs that have intense input/output (I/O) performance and low efficiency. Specifically, the resource management device can determine the sequencing to allocate computational resources for the device code of the application programs according to the priorities of the requests to allocate resources. The resource management device can also allocate the first computational resource for the device code of the application programs from the available computational resources of at least one GPU according to the mapping logic mapping the available hardware resources of at least one GPU to the unified virtual GPU resource.” See ¶ [0061] “In an embodiment, allocating module 62 is configured to determine the sequencing to allocate computational resources for the device code according to the priorities of allocation requests. It is also used to allocate the first computational resource for the device code from the computational resources and the first video memory resource for the device code from the video memory resources according to the mapping logic mapping the available hardware resource of at least one GPU to the unified virtual GPU resource.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Littlefield and Ouyang by adapting Zhao to manage resources to be effectively used and reduce costs (see ¶[0063] of Zhao).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 rejections, applicants argue the claims require the processor configured to analyze resource consumption data and monitoring in real time that cannot be performed in the mind, and involves analyzing resource consumption data. Applicants argue the human mind cannot monitor system resources provisioning and cause execution of system level actions that alter allocation of computing resource. Applicants argue the claims improve functioning of a computer, by the use of monitored resource usage to govern system behavior during operation, and monitors resource consumption. Applicants argue the claims are significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims constitute a particular technological solution for managing and allocating computing resources during system operation.
Examiner disagrees. The human mind can analyze resource consumption data and generate at least one trigger category with aid of pen and paper. For example, the human mind can look at a computer system, and look at the resource consumption data and determine that a specific resource is using all the resources, for example, resource A, and then with that realization, generate a trigger category based on that realization.
The technological process and improvement applicant is mentioning is merely insignificant post solution activity and merely linking the abstract idea into a particular technological environment, recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, the identified limitations fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding 103 rejections, applicants argue Littlefield does not disclose resource requesters but rather resource consumers. Littlefield do not disclose selection of at least one trigger category as the selection disclosed concerns performance models. Littlefield does not disclose emerging resource requesters or other resource requesters, nor associate with system level actions. Ouyang also fails to remedy the deficiencies of Littlefield, because it does not disclose selection of the selectable option to accept the at least one trigger category. Examiner failed to provided reasoning to combine the resources and uses hindsight.
Examiner disagrees. Applicants specification describe the requesters as consuming resources, see ¶[0080] of applicants specification. Thus, it appears it is just word choice. Littlefield discloses a trigger category by describing portions of agent characteristic information that may trigger an action, this is a type of trigger category. Littlefield discloses an emerging resource by describing as a piece of monitored resource goes beyond an expected value, this is considered an emerging resource because it is not a normally behaved, see ¶[0121]. Examiner relied on Ouyang to disclose system level actions, see ¶[0045].
Littlefield discloses the selection of selectable options by describing displaying selected information. Examiner has provided sufficient reasoning to combine the references and it is not hindsight as the reason to combine the reference is indicated in the prior art, to better provide for resource management and performance (see ¶ [0020] of Ouyang). Thus, applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Interview Requests
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.133(a)(3), requests for interview must be made in advance. Interview requests are to be made by telephone (571-270-7848) call or FAX (571-270-8848). Applicants must provide a detailed agenda as to what will be discussed (generic statement such as “discuss §102 rejection” or “discuss rejections of claims 1-3” may be denied interview). The detail agenda along with any proposed amendments is to be written on a PTOL-413A or a custom form and should be faxed (or emailed, subject to MPEP 713.01.I / MPEP 502.03) to the Examiner at least 5 business days prior to the scheduled interview. Interview requests submitted within amendments may be denied because the Examiner was not notified, in advance, of the Applicant Initiated Interview Request and due to time constraints may not be able to review the interview request to prior to the mailing of the next Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Richards et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2010/0153958) facilitate workload management in a computer system are provided. A workload's system resource consumption is adjusted against a target consumption level thereby facilitating maintenance of the consumption to the target consumption within an averaging interval by dynamically controlling workload concurrency levels. System resource consumption is compensated during periods of over or under-consumption by adjusting workload consumption to a larger averaging interval. Further, mechanisms for limiting, or banding, dynamic concurrency adjustments to disallow workload starvation or unconstrained usage at any time are provided. Disclosed mechanisms provide for category of work prioritization goals and subject-area resource division management goals, allow for unclaimed resources due to a lack of demand from one workload to be used by active workloads to yield full system utilization at all times, and provide for monitoring success in light of the potential relative effects of workload under-demand, and under/over-consumption management.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARINA YUN whose telephone number is (571)270-7848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, 9-4 (EST).
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 call.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180. 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.
Carina Yun
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/CARINA YUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2194
/KEVIN L YOUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194