DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 1, in step 1 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the claim is directed to a system. Therefore, the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In step 2A prong 1 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the claim recites a judicial exception. Specifically, the limitations “detect a recurring provisioning relationship based on repeated provisioning of the first resource type to the resource requester over a plurality of intervals, the periodic rate based on monitoring determined by analyzing temporal patterns of resource consumption over a threshold number of intervals” and “identify a second resource type related to the first resource type to replace or offset the first resource type at the periodic rate, a relationship between the first resource type and the second resource type defined by a modifier to determine an amount of the second resource type to provide based on an amount of the first resource type” recite mental processes. Determining a periodic rate based on consumption over time and determining how to replace/offset a first resource type with a second resource type based on a modifier constitutes a mental process of observation (i.e., “detect…”), evaluation (i.e., “identify…”), and judgement (i.e., “determine an amount of the second resource type to provide based on an amount of the first resource type”) because a human with the aid of pen and paper can analyze data entries, identify relationships in data, determine relationships between resources to determine whether a replacement is a proper match and determine an amount of the second resource is needed to replace/offset the first resource.
In step 2A prong 2 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the additional elements, alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application for the following rationale:
The limitations “a computer server system”, “a communications module”, “a processor coupled with the communications module”, and “a memory coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions” apply judicial exceptions on a generic computer. "Alappat 's rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court's Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions" so therefore applying judicial exceptions on a management entity which are generic computers does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The limitation “monitor resource consumption data to identify a first resource type being provided at a periodic rate to a resource requester” represent insignificant, extra-solution activities. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as "activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim" (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The examiner has determined that the limitation “receiving, a plurality of first chunks of data” is directed to mere data gathering activities which is a category of insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation “perform operations, responsive to detecting the recurring provisioning relationship, to automatically provide the second resource type to replace or offset the first resource type at the periodic rate” Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
In step 2B of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the additional elements, alone or in combination do not recite significantly more than the abstract ideas identified above for the following rationale:
The limitations “a computer server system”, “a communications module”, “a processor coupled with the communications module”, and “a memory coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions” apply judicial exceptions on a generic computer and therefore do not provide significantly more.
The limitation “monitor resource consumption data to identify a first resource type being provided at a periodic rate to a resource requester” represent insignificant, extra-solution activities and are well-understood, routine, or conventional because they are directed to "receiving or transmitting data" (MPEP 2106.05(d)). These are additional elements that the courts have recognized as well understood, routine, or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). The citation of court cases in the MPEP meets the Berkheimer evidentiary burden since citation of a court case in the MPEP is one of the 4 types of evidentiary support that can be used to prove that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional (see 125 USPQ2d 1649 Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.). Thus, the limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The limitation perform operations, responsive to detecting the recurring provisioning relationship, to automatically provide the second resource type to replace or offset the first resource type at the periodic rate” is not enough to qualify as “significantly more” because it is akin to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 11, it is a method claim of claim 1, so it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Additionally, claim 11 recites “one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors” which recite generic computing components that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application and do not provide significantly more and recite intended use limitations that do not have patentable weight.
As per claim 20, it is a system type claim of claim 1, so it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Additionally, claim 11 recites “one or more non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions which, when executed, configure a processor to” recite generic computing components that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application and do not provide significantly more and recite intended use limitations that do not have patentable weight.
As per claim 2 (and similarly for claim 12), it recites limitations that integrate into practical application and constitute significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per claim 3 (and similarly for claim 13), it recites limitations which further describes the modifier used to determine an equivalence between the first and second type of resources. This does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per claims 4-5 (and similarly for claims 14 and 15), it recites limitations which further describes the limitation identified as “Apply it” and does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per claims 6-7 (and similarly for claims 16 and 17), it recites limitations directed to obtaining usage data and signal indications which correspond with data gathering, analyzing usage data which similar to claim 1, correspond to the abstract idea, and sending signals which correspond to data transmission, which is extra solution activity. As such, these claims do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per claim 8 (and similarly for claim 18), it recites limitations which further describes the type of the obtained data and does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per claims 9-10 (and similarly for claim 19), they recite limitations which further describes extra solution activities such as sending and receiving signals and does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Further claim 10 describe the source of each of the different resource types which does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9-15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boss et al. (US 9,280,392 B1) in view of Ortiz et al. (US 2020/0257561 A1).
Boss was cited in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Boss teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a computer server system (Fig. 7: computer system/server 12) comprising:
a communications module (Fig. 7, Network Adapter 20);
a processor coupled with the communications module (Fig. 7, Processing Unit 16 coupled to Network Adapter 20); and
a memory coupled to the processor (Fig. 7, Processing Unit 16 coupled to Memory 28) and storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the processor (Col. 12, lines 46-49: memory 28 may include at least one program product having a set (e.g., at least one) of program modules that are configured to carry out the functions of embodiments of the invention.; Col. 14, lines 26-29: a computer readable storage medium (or media) having computer readable program instructions thereon for causing a processor to carry out aspects of the present inventio), configure the processor to:
monitor resource consumption data to identify a first resource type being provided at a periodic rate to a resource requester (Col. 6, lines 56-63: Each monitoring client 312, 322, 332 may receive the request 352 from the resource manager 302 and, by reviewing the current resource usage and resource requirements of the application running on its respective virtual machine, may send a response 353 back to the host system 301 indicating the quantity of the scarce resource type that it can give up and the quantities of at least one of the one or more alternate resources that it would require in return; Col. 8, lines 21-25: For example, in some embodiments, the monitoring client may only provide to the host system with a list of the types of applications that are running on the machine and the resource usage (by type and quantity) by each application.; Col. 3, line 42 through Col. 4, line 3: Furthermore, in some embodiments, a quantity of a scarce resource type may be obtained from multiple applications that each make a different resource substitution or set of resource substitutions… In some embodiments where quantities of scarce resources are freed up in this manner, the users of the applications that free up the scarce resources may receive discounts on their monetary costs, for example, in the form a reduced monthly hosting charge. This cost reduction may be proportional to the quantity of scarce resources that are returned; wherein the “monthly hosting” reasonably teaches a periodic interval of a subscription based resource monthly allocation);
identify a second resource type related to the first resource type to replace or offset the first resource type, a relationship between the first resource type and the second resource type defined by a modifier to determine an amount of the second resource type to provide based on an amount of the first resource type (Col. 3, line 12 through Col. 4, line 3: There may be many options for resource substitution within a virtual computing environment. Turning now to FIG. 1, shown is a resource substitution matrix 100, which includes several of these potential resource substitutions. By using the resource substitutions shown in this matrix, it may be possible to effectively free up certain scarce resource types from applications so that these resources can be reallocated to elsewhere within a virtual computing environment. As used herein, a scarce resource type may refer to any resource type that a virtual machine (or application) has requested for which there may not be enough of that resource type freely available within the relevant virtual computing environment to fulfill the request or at least not enough freely available to fulfill the request without reducing the free quantity of that resource type to an unacceptable level. In the illustrated embodiment, a chart shows five resource types that may be available for trade-off to relieve the impact of a situation wherein one of the other of those five resource types is scarce. These resource types include central processing unit (CPU), for example as measured in gigahertz (GHz); memory, for example as measured in kilobytes (KB); network (i.e., network bandwidth), for example as measured in megabytes per second (MB/Sec); storage, for example as measured in gigabytes (GB); and graphics processing unit (GPU), for example as measured in gigahertz (GHz). In practice, resource substitutions may occur at the individual virtual machine or application level… In some embodiments, these resource substitutions may allow an application to use less of a scarce resource type by using more of other available resource types and/or changing the manner in which it uses these available resource types. For example, as depicted in substitution matrix 100, an application may be able to compensate for a reduction in CPU (i.e., a reallocation of some quantity of CPU from that application to another application) by reducing compression of stored to data, thereby increasing its use of storage. Furthermore, in some embodiments, a quantity of a scarce resource type may be obtained from multiple applications that each make a different resource substitution or set of resource substitutions.; Col. 3, lines 42-59; Col. 4, line 65 through Col. 5, line 6: For instance, if the first resource is CPU, then one virtual machine may indicate that it is running an application that could give up a quantity of CPU (e.g., where at least that quantity of CPU is currently allocated to it) in exchange for another quantity of memory (which may be done, as shown in the substitution matrix 100 of FIG. 1, by using the increased memory to increase the cache size for instructions or data, so as to decrease the application's need for CPU).; As shown above, CPU and storage are scarce types of resources and the modifier corresponds to a quantity of CPU given in exchange for quantity of memory); and
perform operations to automatically provide the second resource type to replace or offset the first resource type at the periodic rate (Col. 8, line 1: method 400 may be done without user interaction; Col. 3, lines 42-67: Col. 4, line 65 through Col. 5, line 6: For instance, if the first resource is CPU, then one virtual machine may indicate that it is running an application that could give up a quantity of CPU (e.g., where at least that quantity of CPU is currently allocated to it) in exchange for another quantity of memory (which may be done, as shown in the substitution matrix 100 of FIG. 1, by using the increased memory to increase the cache size for instructions or data, so as to decrease the application's need for CPU).; Col. 5, lines 9-23: As used herein, a trade-off group may refer to a set of one or more applications running in the virtual computing environment that can together use quantities of one or more alternate resource types as a substitute for the desired quantity of a first (e.g., scarce) resource type. An example trade-off group might be a single application that can relinquish the desired quantity of the scarce resource type in exchange for a substituted quantity of a single alternate resource type. Another example trade-off group might be two applications that can each relinquish half of the desired quantity of the scarce resource type in exchange for a first substituted quantity of a first alternate resource type (to the first application) and a second substituted quantity of a second alternate resource type (to the second application).; Col. 3, line 42 through Col. 4, line 3: Furthermore, in some embodiments, a quantity of a scarce resource type may be obtained from multiple applications that each make a different resource substitution or set of resource substitutions… In some embodiments where quantities of scarce resources are freed up in this manner, the users of the applications that free up the scarce resources may receive discounts on their monetary costs, for example, in the form a reduced monthly hosting charge. This cost reduction may be proportional to the quantity of scarce resources that are returned; Col. 5, lines 39-48).
Boss teaches monitoring resource consumption, identifying a second resource type to replace or offset the first resource type, and provide the second resource type to replace or offset the first resource type on a monthly basis. Boss does not explicitly teach detect a recurring provisioning relationship based on repeated provisioning of the first resource type to the resource requester over a plurality of intervals, the periodic rate being determined by analyzing temporal patterns of resource consumption over a threshold number of intervals.
However, Ortiz teaches detect a recurring provisioning relationship based on repeated provisioning of the first resource type to the resource requester over a plurality of intervals, the periodic rate being determined by analyzing temporal patterns of resource consumption over a threshold number of intervals ([0003]; [0004] obtain a time-series data set including data entries associated with one or more consumed resources; identify one or more recurring resource allocations based on recurring data entries of the time-series data set; [0112] At 404, the processor may identify one or more recurring resource allocations based on recurring data entries of the time-series data set. In some embodiments, identifying one or more recurring resource allocations may be based on heuristics. In some embodiments, the heuristics may include rules-based pattern recognition operations for identifying recurring resource allocations (e.g., monetary payments, computing resource allocations, etc.) that recur on substantially periodic time-basis.; [0125-126]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ortiz of utilizing monitored utilization of resources for previous time periods to determine usage patterns allocated resources to determine a future resource allocation that will be needed with the teachings of Boss of replacing or offsetting a resource of a first type for a resource of a second type. The modification would have been motivated by the desire of ensuring unused resource are reclaimed and redistributing the resource among other applications/VMs.
Regarding claim 2, Boss teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further configure the processor to:
determine an amount of the first resource type provided to the resource requester at a periodic rate and provide an amount of the second resource type to replace or offset the first resource type at the periodic rate based on the amount of the first resource type provided to the resource requester (Col. 3, lines 42-59: In some embodiments, these resource substitutions may allow an application to use less of a scarce resource type by using more of other available resource types and/or changing the manner in which it uses these available resource types. For example, as depicted in substitution matrix 100, an application may be able to compensate for a reduction in CPU (i.e., a reallocation of some quantity of CPU from that application to another application) by reducing compression of stored to data, thereby increasing its use of storage. Furthermore, in some embodiments, a quantity of a scarce resource type may be obtained from multiple applications that each make a different resource substitution or set of resource substitutions. For example, if a given amount of storage needs to be freed up, then one application could free up half of that amount by using more CPU to increase the compression of stored data, and a second application could free up another half of that amount of storage by increasing its cache size (i.e., using more memory).; Col. 3, line 42 through Col. 4, line 3: monthly hosting/storage resource allocation).
Regarding claim 3, Boss teaches wherein the modifier defines an equivalence between the first resource type and the second resource type (Col. 3, lines 42-59; Col. 4, line 65 through Col. 5, line 6: For instance, if the first resource is CPU, then one virtual machine may indicate that it is running an application that could give up a quantity of CPU (e.g., where at least that quantity of CPU is currently allocated to it) in exchange for another quantity of memory (which may be done, as shown in the substitution matrix 100 of FIG. 1, by using the increased memory to increase the cache size for instructions or data, so as to decrease the application's need for CPU).; Col. 3, line 42 through Col. 4, line 3).
Regarding claim 4, Boss teaches wherein the second resource type is provided to replace the first resource type at the periodic rate and the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further configure the processor to: automatically provide the second resource type to the resource requester to replace the first resource type (Col. 5, lines 9-23: As used herein, a trade-off group may refer to a set of one or more applications running in the virtual computing environment that can together use quantities of one or more alternate resource types as a substitute for the desired quantity of a first (e.g., scarce) resource type. An example trade-off group might be a single application that can relinquish the desired quantity of the scarce resource type in exchange for a substituted quantity of a single alternate resource type. Another example trade-off group might be two applications that can each relinquish half of the desired quantity of the scarce resource type in exchange for a first substituted quantity of a first alternate resource type (to the first application) and a second substituted quantity of a second alternate resource type (to the second application); Col. 3, line 42 through Col. 4, line 3: monthly hosting/storage resource allocation).
Regarding claim 5, Boss teaches wherein the second resource type is provided to offset the first resource type at the periodic rate and the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further configure the processor to: automatically provide the second resource type to a resource account associated with the first resource type to offset the first resource type (Fig. 1 resource accounts; Col. 5, lines 13-17: An example trade-off group might be a single application that can relinquish the desired quantity of the scarce resource type in exchange for a substituted quantity of a single alternate resource type.; Col. 3, line 42 through Col. 4, line 3: monthly hosting/storage resource allocation).
Regarding claim 9, Boss teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further configure the processor to:
send, via the communications module and to a computing device, a signal causing the computing device to display a user interface that includes a recommendation for providing the second resource type to replace or offset the first resource type at the periodic rate and a selectable interface element for accepting the recommendation; and receive, via the communications module and from the computing device, a signal indicating selection of the selectable interface element for accepting the recommendation (Col. 8, lines 1-19: in some embodiments, user input may be used in determining whether a potential resource substitution will be acceptable. For example, in some embodiments, feedback from a user of a virtual machine may be used to determine whether a potential substitution may be made. This may be done in situations where the users may want more control over their experiences. Such an ability to control whether a potential resource substitution is acceptable may be significant to a user in a case where a potential resource substitution may be technically feasible but is still not acceptable to the user based on the user's preferences or characteristics of the application.; Col. 3, line 64; Col. 3, line 42 through Col. 4, line 3: monthly hosting/storage resource allocation).
Regarding claim 10, Boss teaches wherein the first resource type is provided from a first resource account and the second resource type is provided from a second resource account (Fig. 1; Col. 3, line 13-41: Turning now to FIG. 1, shown is a resource substitution matrix 100, which includes several of these potential resource substitutions. By using the resource substitutions shown in this matrix, it may be possible to effectively free up certain scarce resource types from applications so that these resources can be reallocated to elsewhere within a virtual computing environment. As used herein, a scarce resource type may refer to any resource type that a virtual machine (or application) has requested for which there may not be enough of that resource type freely available within the relevant virtual computing environment to fulfill the request or at least not enough freely available to fulfill the request without reducing the free quantity of that resource type to an unacceptable level. In the illustrated embodiment, a chart shows five resource types that may be available for trade-off to relieve the impact of a situation wherein one of the other of those five resource types is scarce. These resource types include central processing unit (CPU), for example as measured in gigahertz (GHz); memory, for example as measured in kilobytes (KB); network (i.e., network bandwidth), for example as measured in megabytes per second (MB/Sec); storage, for example as measured in gigabytes (GB); and graphics processing unit (GPU), for example as measured in gigahertz (GHz). In practice, resource substitutions may occur at the individual virtual machine or application level and may be hardcoded into an application or coded in a more flexible manner so as to allow the application to respond appropriately to the conditions of the virtual computing environment.).
Regarding claim 11, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale above.
Regarding claim 12, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale above.
Regarding claim 13, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale above.
Regarding claim 14, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale above.
Regarding claim 15, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale above.
Regarding claim 19, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as claim 9 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale above.
Regarding claim 20, it is a media/product type claim having similar limitations as claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale above.
Claims 6-7 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boss and Ortiz, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Kernick et al. (US 2021/0049128 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Boss teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further configure the processor to:
obtain, via the communications module, usage data (Col. 8, lines 21-25: For example, in some embodiments, the monitoring client may only provide to the host system with a list of the types of applications that are running on the machine and the resource usage (by type and quantity) by each application);
analyze the usage data to determine that a service provided by the resource requester is not being used (Col. 2 lines 51-61: For example, in determining the total quantity of each resource type that is made available to applications running in a given virtual computing environment, a balance may need to be struck between a desire to avoid waste by minimizing the quantity of free resources within the virtual computing environment (i.e., to maximize the percentage of each resource type that is currently allocated to applications) and a competing desire to ensure that there is not overutilization of resources (i.e., to avoid running out of one or more resource types and thereby causing a failure in one or more applications)).
Boss teaches in at least Col. 8, lines 1-19 a display for receiving confirmation from a user regarding a resource substitution but Boss nor Ortiz do not explicitly teach responsive to determining that the service provided by the resource requester is not being used, send, via the communications module and to a computing device, a signal causing the computing device to display a user interface that includes a recommendation for cancelling the service provided by the resource requester and a selectable interface element for accepting the recommendation.
However, Kernick teaches responsive to determining that the service provided by the resource requester is not being used, send, via the communications module and to a computing device, a signal causing the computing device to display a user interface that includes a recommendation for cancelling the service provided by the resource requester and a selectable interface element for accepting the recommendation ([0058] the GUI can present a prompt recommending that the user delete their account and/or cancel their subscription applications identified to be uninstalled and/or confirmed by the user to be uninstalled.; [0140] In various embodiments, the subset of the set of deletion candidate data includes an entirety of application data for one of the plurality of applications. Facilitating deletion of the subset of the set of deletion candidate data includes facilitating uninstalling of the one of the plurality of applications. In various embodiments, the deletion criteria data includes an unused application condition. The entirety of application data for the one of the plurality of applications is included in the subset of the set of deletion candidate data in response to determining the one of the plurality of applications has not been opened for at least a threshold amount of time.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kernick of offering suggestions to a user to terminate idle applications to free resources with the teachings of Boss and Ortiz to relinquish resources needed by other applications. The modification would have been motivated by the desire of optimizing resource utilization.
Regarding claim 7, Kernick teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further configure the processor to:
receive, via the communications module and from the computing device, a signal indicating selection of the selectable interface element for accepting the recommendation (Fig. 2A User Input; [0037] A deletion confirmation prompt 244 can be presented to the user, prompting the user to select which ones of the deletion data file subset should be deleted and/or archived.); and send, via the communications module and to a third party server associated with the resource requester, a signal requesting cancellation of the service provided by the resource requester (Fig. 2A: Confirmed deletion data file subset to Deletion Module 230).
Regarding claim 8, Boss teaches wherein the usage data includes at least one of network data obtained from a third party server associated with the resource requester or location data obtained from the computing device (Col. 7, lines 39-44: For example, if the scarce resource type is storage, then the monitoring client might determine that an application running on the virtual machine can either free up 2 GB of storage by modifying the manner in which it is using its current allocation of memory or free up 3 GB of storage by obtaining an extra 20 MB/Sec of the host system's free network bandwidth.; Col. 11, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 16, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale above.
Regarding claim 17, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as claim 7 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale above.
Regarding claim 18, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as claim 8 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In Remarks Applicant states:
(I) 35 U.S.C. 101
In the Office Action, the Examiner has alleged that the claims are directed to a mental process that involves analysis of temporal patterns and determination of resource substitution. The Examiner's characterization omits key claim limitations and oversimplifies the claimed subject matter.
Claim 1 recites, among other features, monitor resource consumption data to identify a first resource type being provided at a periodic rate to a resource requester and detect a recurring provisioning relationship based on repeated provisioning of the first resource type to the resource requester over a plurality of intervals, the periodic rate being determined by analyzing temporal patterns of resource consumption over a threshold number of intervals. This is not a mental process. The claimed subject matter operates on resource consumption data within a computing system and requires identifying repeated provisioning events to a specific requester across multiple intervals and automatically performing resource substitution at a determined periodic rate. These operations are performed by a computer system managing computing resources and cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
The Examiner's treatment of the automatic provision of the second resource type as merely "apply it" is misplaced. This limitation defines the operative mechanism by which the system modifies allocation of computing resources without user intervention based on detected recurring provisioning relationships. It is not an instruction to apply an abstract idea, but a specific system operation that changes how the computer manages resources.
(II) 35 U.S.C. 103
Claim 1 has been amended to recite, among other features, "monitor resource consumption data to identify a first resource type being provided at a periodic rate to a resource requester and detect a recurring provisioning relationship based on repeated provisioning of the first resource type to the resource requester over a plurality of intervals, the periodic rate being determined by analyzing temporal patterns of resource consumption over a threshold number of intervals" and "perform operations, responsive to detecting the recurring provisioning relationship, to automatically provide the second resource type to replace or offset the first resource type at the periodic rate," (emphasis added).
Contrary to the Examiner's allegation, the cited references do not show, teach, or suggest the claimed subject matter. The claimed subject matter requires identifying a recurring provisioning relationship based on repeated provisioning events to a requester across a plurality of intervals and determining a periodic rate based on that relationship. The claimed subject matter therefore requires detection of a requester-specific provisioning pattern derived from repeated provisioning events over time.
In view of the above, examiner submits the following.
As to point (I)
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. The limitation “perform operations, responsive to detecting the recurring provisioning relationship, to automatically provide the second resource type to replace or offset the first resource type at the periodic rate” implements the abstract idea on a generic computer, but is not particular and is instead merely instructions to “apply” the exception in a generic way. This step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or adds significantly more in Step 2B. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
As to point (II)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 JORGE A CHU JOY-DAVILA whose telephone number is (571)270-0692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00am-5:00pm.
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, Aimee J Li can be reached at (571)272-4169. 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.
/JORGE A CHU JOY-DAVILA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights