DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. In response to the Office action mailed on 10/1/2025, the applicants have filed a response: claims 1 - 4, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14 have been amended. Claims 1 – 17 and 19 - 21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1 – 17 and 19 - 21 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a system comprising: at least one processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the system to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising: processing a set of candidate data centers to generate a subset of preferred data centers based on a set of rules corresponding to an environmental condition associated with an energy type, thereby identifying at least a first data center and a second data center that together offset variability of the energy type; receiving a first request for processing from a first computing device, wherein the first request is associated with a workload assigned to the first data center of the subset of preferred candidate data centers; providing the first request to the first data center for processing; in response to determining, based on reduced availability of the energy type at the first data center relative to other energy types at the first data center, to load balance the workload associated with the first data center to the second data center of the subset of preferred data centers, reassigning the workload to the second data center, the reassigning comprising: receiving a second request for processing from a second computing device, wherein the second request is associated with the workload; and providing the second request to the second data center for processing.
The limitations, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The abstract idea limitations are “in response to determining, based reduced availability … to load balance …” in Prong I step 2A. Other limitations including “processing a set of candidate data centers …,” “receiving a first request …, “providing the first request …,” “receiving a second request …” and “providing the second request …” are considered pre/post-activity solutions for receiving a state of performance information and performing an action which is merely an applied application which insignificantly amounts to a judicial exception. Thus, these claims are directing to abstract idea under 35 USC 101.
There is nothing in the claim elements to preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. All of the non-abstract limitations are pre/post-activity solutions for getting/obtaining/manipulating/displaying data without significantly more. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the components in the determining step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving information, executing a function and making a decision) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the steps of “receiving a first request …, “providing the first request …,” “receiving a second request …” and “providing the second request …” are pre/post-activity solutions as gathering/manipulating data that are insignificant under Prong II step 2A and 2B. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) as noted in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, this 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. Independent claim 14 is rejected on the same basis as independent claim 1. Additionally, dependent claims 15 – 17 and 19 - 21 are similarly rejected as being directed to an abstract idea since these claims are either further detailing the abstract idea by analyzing/processing the data or the elements are insignificant. Claims 2 - 7 are similarly rejected as being directed to an abstract idea since these claims are either further detailing the abstract idea by analyzing/processing the data or the elements are insignificant. More specifically, the dependent claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per claims 2, 10 and 15, wherein: the environmental conditions includes a time of day; and the first data center and the second data center are longitudinally opposed to offset variability of solar energy available to each of the first data center and the second data center recite an additional element of data gathering which is insignificant extra solution activity as explained above.
As per claims 3, 11 and 16, wherein: the environmental conditions includes a current season; and the first data center and the second data center are latitudinally opposed to offset variability of solar energy available to each of the first data center and the second data center recite an additional element of data gathering which is insignificant extra solution activity as explained above.
As per claims 4, 12 and 17, wherein the subset of preferred data centers further comprises a third data center that is longitudinally opposed to the first data center recites an additional element of data gathering which is insignificant extra solution activity as explained above.
As per claims 5 and 21, wherein the workload is a first workload and the set of operations further comprises: receiving, after reassigning the first workload to the second data center, a third request associated with a second workload, wherein the second workload has an associated latency requirement is an additional element of data gathering which is insignificant extra solution activity as explained above; and based on the associated latency requirement and after transitioning the first workload from the first data center to the second data center, providing the third request to the first data center instead of the second data center recite generic computer components for applying the abstract idea.
As per claims 6 and 19, wherein determining to transition from the first data center to the second data center comprises receiving, from a sustainability manager, an indication to transition from the first data center to the second data center is an additional element of data gathering which is insignificant extra solution activity as explained above.
As per claims 7 and 20, wherein the first request and the second request are each received from the same computing device which is insignificant extra solution activity as explained above.
Independent claim 8 recites a method for transitioning workload processing based on a set of candidate data centers, the method comprising: generating the set of candidate data centers by processing a set of rules based on, for each data center, a geographic location of the data center and an associated availability of renewable energy, wherein the generated set of candidate data centers includes a first data center that is geographically dispersed from a second data center of the set of candidate data centers to offset variability of the type of renewable energy that is available to both (t)he first data center and the second data center; determining, based on a set of current environmental conditions comprising a change in availability of the type of renewable type relative to other energy types at the first preferred data center, a first preferred data center from the set of candidate data centers; configuring the first preferred data center to process a workload; determining, based on an updated set of environmental conditions, a second preferred data center from the set of candidate data centers that is different from the first preferred data center; and configuring the second preferred data center to process the workload instead of the first preferred data center, thereby load balancing processing for the workload from the first preferred data center to the second data center in response to the updated set of current environmental conditions.
The limitations, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The abstract idea limitation is “determining, based on a set of current environmental conditions, a first preferred data center …,” and “determining, based on an updated set of environmental conditions, a second preferred data center …” in Prong I step 2A. Other limitations including “generating the set of candidate data centers …, “configuring the first preferred data center …” and “configuring the second preferred data center …” are considered pre/post-activity solutions for receiving a state of performance information and performing an action which is merely an applied application which insignificantly amounts to a judicial exception. Thus, these claims are directing to abstract idea under 35 USC 101.
There is nothing in the claim elements to preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. All of the non-abstract limitations are pre/post-activity solutions for getting/obtaining/manipulating/displaying data without significantly more. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the components in the determining step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving information, executing a function and making a decision) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the steps of “generating the set of candidate data centers …, “configuring the first preferred data center …” and “configuring the second preferred data center …” are pre/post-activity solutions as gathering/manipulating data that are insignificant under Prong II step 2A and 2B. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) as noted in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, this 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. Additionally, dependent claims 2 – 7 are similarly rejected as being directed to an abstract idea since these claims are either further detailing the abstract idea by analyzing/processing the data or the elements are insignificant. More specifically, the dependent claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above regarding integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components merely applying the abstract idea and field of use/technological environment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claims 1, 6 – 9, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naidu et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0342185) (Naidu hereinafter) in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Publication 2020/0409324) and Jain (U.S. Patent 9,207,993) (Jain hereinafter) (Identified by Applicant in IDS).
8. As per claim 1, Naidu teaches a system comprising:
at least one processor [Processor 102, fig. 1]; and
memory [Memory 104, fig. 1] storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the system to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising:
processing a set of candidate data centers to generate a subset of preferred data centers [“Although the relocation of workloads is explained with reference to two data centers, the techniques of the present subject matter can be applied for data center systems having more than two data centers. When there are more than two data centers in the data center system 200, the system 100 may select a target data center to which a workload is to be relocated for achieving the targets,” ¶ 0065];
receiving a first request for processing from a first computing device, wherein the first request is associated with a workload assigned to the first data center of the subset of preferred candidate data centers [“The processor 102 may execute the instructions 110 to receive a target for the data center system. The target may be received, for example, from the memory 104 or from another computing device (not shown in FIG. 1). The target may pertain to power consumption of the data center system,” ¶ 0025];
providing the first request to the first data center for processing [“The processor 102 may execute the instructions 108 to receive power source information of the data center system. The power source information may be received, for example, from the memory 104 or from another computing device (not shown in FIG . 1). The power source information may indicate a first power cost (also referred to as a first cost) incurred for obtaining electric power for the first data center and a second power cost (also referred to as a second cost) incurred for obtaining electric power for the second data center,” ¶ 0024];
the reassigning comprising: receiving a second request for processing from a second computing device, wherein the second request is associated with the workload; and providing the second request to the second data center for processing [“the data center system may include a third data center, such as the third data center 306. The power source information may indicate a fourth power cost incurred for obtaining electric power for the third data center and a type of power source that powers the third data center, such as the fourth power source 308,” ¶ 0077].
Naidu does not explicitly disclose but Liu discloses based on a set of rules corresponding to an environmental condition associated with an energy type, thereby identifying at least a first data center and a second data center that together offset variability of the energy type [“The network 120 may be a wireless network, a wireline network, or may be a combination of both wireless and wireline networks. In accordance with some embodiments of the inventive concept, the solar servers 110a, 110b, and 110c may be located in geographically diverse locations to increase the probabilities that one or more of the solar servers 110a, 110b, and 110c transitions to a power on or active state due to sufficient radiation from the sun being incident on the solar panels 120a, 120b, and 120c … The solar servers 110a, 110b, and 110c are communicatively coupled to the data center 130 and may be physically isolated. This may reduce or eliminate the influence of the electrical power grid and may protect the solar servers 110a, 110b, and 110c and/or the data center 130 when one or more of the elements of the computation network 100 has a problem,” ¶ 0064; reducing or eliminating the influence of the electrical power grid suggests a policy/rule-based determination].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Naidu and Liu available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of relocation of workloads across data centers as disclosed by Naidu to include the capability of dynamic application placement based on resource availability as taught by Liu, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system usage and efficiency by relocating applications based on energy source availability.
Naidu and Liu do not explicitly disclose but Jain discloses in response to determining, based on reduced availability of the energy type at the first data center relative to other energy types at the first data center, to load balance the workload associated with the first data center to the second data center of the subset of preferred data centers, reassigning the workload to the second data center [“FIG. 9 illustrates a computer-implemented optimization method in accordance with the disclosed architecture. At 900, multiple hosting sites are received that run application instances to process workload. At 902, data related to real time energy parameters associated with each hosting site and energy sources for the hosting sites is tracked. At 904, data related to realtime computing resources associated with available computing elements of the hosting sites is tracked. At 906, the data is reasoned over to output optimization decisions. At 908, application instances are automatically relocating between the hosting sites based on the optimization decisions. Although illustrated as a single iteration, in practice, the flow can return to 900 from 908 to represent continuous processing,” col. 16, lines 22 – 35; application relocating mapped to load balancing, energy parameters mapped to environmental conditions; “the optimization decisions output are based on renewable and non-renewable energy sources. At 1006, the optimization decisions are out put based on dynamic variations in energy prices temporarily and geographically. At 1008, the availability and cost of energy sources at a specific time is predicted based on learned information that includes historical energy availability data and future event notifications,” col. 16, lines 44 – 51; dynamic variations of renewable and non-renewable energy sources suggests variability of the energy type relative to other energy types].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Naidu, Liu and Jain available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of relocation of workloads across data centers as disclosed by Naidu and Liu to include the capability of dynamic application placement as taught by Jain, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system usage and efficiency by relocating applications based on system environment considerations.
9. As per claim 6, Naidu, Liu and Jain teach the system of claim 1. Jain further teaches wherein determining to transition from the first data center to the second data center comprises receiving, from a sustainability manager, an indication to transition from the first data center to the second data center [“FIG. 9 illustrates a computer-implemented optimization method in accordance with the disclosed architecture. At 900, multiple hosting sites are received that run application instances to process workload. At 902, data related to real time energy parameters associated with each hosting site and energy sources for the hosting sites is tracked. At 904, data related to realtime computing resources associated with available computing elements of the hosting sites is tracked. At 906, the data is reasoned over to output optimization decisions. At 908, application instances are automatically relocating between the hosting sites based on the optimization decisions. Although illustrated as a single iteration, in practice, the flow can return to 900 from 908 to represent continuous processing,” ¶ 0026; energy parameter consideration mapped to sustainability].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Naidu, Liu and Jain available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of relocation of workloads across data centers as disclosed by Naidu and Liu to include the capability of dynamic application placement as taught by Jain, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system usage and efficiency by relocating applications based on system environment considerations.
10. As per claim 7, Naidu, Liu and Jain teach the system of claim 1. Naidu further teaches wherein the first request and the second request are each received from the same computing device [“Referring to method 400, at block 402, power source information of a data center system is received. The data center system may include a first data center , such as the first data center 202, and a second data center, such as the second data center 204,” ¶ 0073].
11. As per claim 8, Naidu and Liu teach a method for transitioning workload processing based on a set of candidate data centers, the method comprising: generating the set of candidate data centers based on, for each data center, a geographic location of the data center and an associated availability of renewable energy, wherein the generated set of candidate data centers includes a first data center that is geographically dispersed from a second data center of the set of candidate data centers to offset variability of an energy type that is available to both (t)he first data center and the second data center [“a data center system may include a plurality of data centers, such as a first data center and a second data center. The data center system may be managed or owned by an organization,” ¶ 0011; “FIG. 2 illustrates a network environment having the system 100 and a data center system 200 in which workloads may be relocated, according to an example implementation of the present subject matter. The data center system 200 includes a first data center 202 and a second data center 204. The data centers of the data center system 200 may be distributed geographically, such as spread across regions of a country or across countries,” ¶ 0028; “The first power source 211 may be of a first type and the second power source 212 may be of a second type. A type of power source may indicate a fuel or a source from which a power source generates power. For instance, the first power source 211 may be of a thermal power plant type, which indicates that the first power source 211 uses coal as fuel, and the second power source 212 may be of a solar farm type, which indicates that the second power source 212 generates power from solar energy. A type of power source may also indicate whether the power source is a renewable power source or a non-renewable power source,” ¶ 0034].
Naidu does not explicitly disclose but Liu discloses to offset variability of an energy type that is available to both (t)he first data center and the second data center [“The network 120 may be a wireless network, a wireline network, or may be a combination of both wireless and wireline networks. In accordance with some embodiments of the inventive concept, the solar servers 110a, 110b, and 110c may be located in geographically diverse locations to increase the probabilities that one or more of the solar servers 110a, 110b, and 110c transitions to a power on or active state due to sufficient radiation from the sun being incident on the solar panels 120a, 120b, and 120c … The solar servers 110a, 110b, and 110c are communicatively coupled to the data center 130 and may be physically isolated. This may reduce or eliminate the influence of the electrical power grid and may protect the solar servers 110a, 110b, and 110c and/or the data center 130 when one or more of the elements of the computation network 100 has a problem,” ¶ 0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Naidu and Liu available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of relocation of workloads across data centers as disclosed by Naidu to include the capability of dynamic application placement based on resource availability as taught by Liu, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system usage and efficiency by relocating applications based on energy source availability.
Naidu and Liu do not explicitly disclose but Jain discloses determining, based on a set of environmental conditions, a first preferred data center from the set of candidate data centers; and configuring the first preferred data center to process a workload; determining, based on an updated set of environmental conditions comprising variability of the energy type relative to other energy types at the first preferred data center, a second preferred data center from the set of candidate data centers that is different from the first preferred data center; and configuring the second preferred data center to process the workload instead of the first preferred data center, thereby balancing the workload associated with the first preferred data center to the second preferred data center [“FIG. 9 illustrates a computer-implemented optimization method in accordance with the disclosed architecture. At 900, multiple hosting sites are received that run application instances to process workload. At 902, data related to real time energy parameters associated with each hosting site and energy sources for the hosting sites is tracked. At 904, data related to realtime computing resources associated with available computing elements of the hosting sites is tracked. At 906, the data is reasoned over to output optimization decisions. At 908, application instances are automatically relocating between the hosting sites based on the optimization decisions. Although illustrated as a single iteration, in practice, the flow can return to 900 from 908 to represent continuous processing,” col. 16, lines 22 – 35; energy parameters mapped to environmental conditions; “the optimization decisions output are based on renewable and non-renewable energy sources. At 1006, the optimization decisions are out put based on dynamic variations in energy prices temporarily and geographically. At 1008, the availability and cost of energy sources at a specific time is predicted based on learned information that includes historical energy availability data and future event notifications,” col. 16, lines 44 – 51; dynamic variations of renewable and non-renewable energy sources suggests variability of the energy type relative to other energy types].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Naidu, Liu and Jain available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of relocation of workloads across data centers as disclosed by Naidu and Liu to include the capability of dynamic application placement as taught by Jain, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system usage and efficiency by relocating applications based on system environment considerations.
12. As per claim 9, Naidu, Liu and Jain teach the method of claim 8. Jain further teaches wherein configuring the second preferred data center to process the workload comprises at least one of: providing, to a load balancer, an indication to transition from the first preferred data center to the second preferred data center; or providing, to the first preferred data center, an indication to transition workload processing to the second preferred data center, thereby causing the second preferred data center to receive session state information of the first preferred data center [“At 904, data related to realtime computing resources associated with available computing elements of the hosting sites is tracked. At 906, the data is reasoned over to output optimization decisions. At 908, application instances are automatically relocating between the hosting sites based on the optimization decisions,” col. 16, lines 27 – 33; optimization decisions leading to automatic relocation mapped to indications to transition; “FIG. 11 illustrates further aspects of the method of FIG.9. At 1100, application instances are migrated between data centers based on integration of optimization decisions with a language runtime mechanism or virtual machine migration. At 1102, application-state and user-data are replicated at different hosting sites based on request redirection of incoming user requests,” col. 16, lines 53 – 59; application-state replication mapped to session state information receipt].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Naidu, Liu and Jain available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of relocation of workloads across data centers as disclosed by Naidu and Liu to include the capability of dynamic application placement as taught by Jain, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system usage and efficiency by relocating applications based on system environment considerations.
13. As per claim 19, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
14. As per claim 20, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
15. Claims 5, 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naidu, Liu and Jain in further view of Sen at al. (U.S. Publication 2023/0185621) (Sen hereinafter) and Maynard (U.S. Patent 8,566,445) (Maynard hereinafter).
16. As per claim 5, Naidu, Liu and Jain teach the system of claim 1. Naidu further teaches based on the associated latency requirement and after transitioning the first workload from the first data center to the second data center [“the system 100 may determine whether a workload identified for relocation can satisfy its performance targets after its relocation. If it is determined that the workload may not satisfy the targets after relocation (such as due to increased latency), the system 100 may determine that the workload is not to be moved,” ¶ 0055].
Naidu and Jain do not explicitly disclose but Sen discloses wherein the workload is a first workload and the set of operations further comprises: receiving, after reassigning the first workload to the second data center, a third request associated with a second workload, wherein the second workload has an associated latency requirement; based on the associated latency requirement, providing the third request to the first data center instead of the second data center [“Step 804 is determining whether to send the request to a first computer system 300 or a second, cloud-based computer system 400, the determination based on (i) an estimated hardware requirement necessary to the complete the computer implemented task, (ii) a latency requirement of the computer implemented task, (iii) a hardware capacity of the first computer system 300, and (iv) an estimated financial cost of using the second, cloud-based computer system 400 for the computer implemented task. The first computer system 300 can be an on-premises computer system 300 (e.g., on-site servers). The second, cloud-based computer system 400 can be an off-premises computer system 400 (e.g., Amazon Web Services),” ¶ 0091].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Naidu, Liu, Jain and Sen available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of relocation of workloads across data centers as disclosed by Naidu, Liu and Jain to include the capability of optimized resource allocation as taught by Sen, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system usage and efficiency by routing requests based on system environment limitations.
Naidu, Liu, Jain and Sen do not explicitly disclose but Maynard discloses after transitioning the first workload from the first data center to the second data center [“in response to the single client name server DNS request, applying a series of load balancing methods, wherein the series of load balancing methods includes a first load balancing method and a second load balancing method to be applied in a sequence, wherein: the first load balancing method is based on at least one performance metric of respective Domain Name Service servers available to respond to the single client name server DNS request, the performance metric comprising a number of connections metric; and the second load balancing method comprises a network latency load balancing coordinating multiple ones of the Domain Name Service servers available to respond to the single client name server DNS request to respond to the single client name server DNS request at the same time by simultaneously sending, respective, DNS responses to the single client name server DNS request to the client name server, each of the DNS responses to include an Internet Protocol (IP) address associated with the URL included in the single DNS request, the second load balancing method being applied after the first load balancing method completes,” Cl. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Naidu, Liu, Jain, Sen and Maynard available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of relocation of workloads across data centers as disclosed by Naidu, Liu, Jain and Sen to include the capability of load balancing as taught by Maynard, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system usage and efficiency by employing load balancing techniques based on multiple factors.
17. As per claim 14, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claims 1 and 5. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claims 1 and 5 above.
18. As per claim 21, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 21 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
19. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
20. Applicant first argues on page 7, that the subject claims are eligible because they contain limitations that cannot be performed by the human mind, quoting a portion of the guidance recited in the noted August 2025 USPTO memorandum that “a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s).“ Applicant appears to be suggesting that a claim that comprises any limitations that cannot be performed by the human mind amounts to eligible subject matter. This is incorrect and ignores the guidance in the noted memo directly preceding the quoted portion in which “The USPTO subject matter eligibility analysis follows this precedent and instructs examiners to determine that a claim recites a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” As is explained above, the claims contain limitations that can be performed by the human mind, along with limitations that implement the abstract idea. The claims thus amount to ineligible subject matter.
The claims further do not constitute an improvement in the functioning of a computer but rather implement the abstract idea using generic computing technology. Additionally, the combinations of claim elements are evaluated as a whole as detailed above: “This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the components in the determining step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving information, executing a function and making a decision) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the steps of “receiving a first request …, “providing the first request …,” “receiving a second request …” and “providing the second request …” are pre/post-activity solutions as gathering/manipulating data that are insignificant under Prong II step 2A and 2B. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) as noted in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, this 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.”
21. Regarding applicant’s argument that the claims recite technical improvements to computer technology in a way that is not merely well-understood, routine and conventional, the cited prior art references demonstrate the contrary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Independent Claims 1 and 8
22. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
23. As noted above, Naidu filters a set of data centers as recited above.
24. Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Independent Claim 14
25. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
26. Naidu discloses multiple scenarios in which workloads may be moved due to latency restrictions (described as performance targets in cited paragraph [0055] to include maximum response time which suggests latency). Maynard is cited in combination with the other cited references and discloses a second load balancing method being applied after a first load balancing method completes as cited above.
Conclusion
28. 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.
29. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-5285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Chat C Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/WILLIAM C WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights