DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to the claimed amendment filed on February 23, 2026, in which claims 1-20 are presented for further examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 23, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Remark
Applicant asserted that the advantage of improving efficiency and speed of providing customized control over a cluster and reducing the usage of computational resources for correcting an error in a configuration of a containerized computing cluster provides an improvement to the functioning of a computer, other technology, and/or technical field and the recitations of amended independent claim 1 are integrated into a practical application and are, therefore, patent-eligible.
Applicant should duly note that “improving efficiency and speed of providing customized control over a cluster and reducing the usage of computational resources” is not eligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 because it is not provided a specific, technological solution that improves the functioning of a computer or a technical field. It is also not integrated into a practical application with concrete benefits. Even if all the details contained in the specification, as cited in the arguments, were imported into the claims, the result would still not be a concrete implementation of the abstract idea. The claim is viewed as a whole not directed to a solution of a “technological problem,” nor is it directed to an improvement in computer functionality. Instead, the claimed element claims the abstract idea through the use of conventional session for working memory associated with the control plane, without offering any technological means of effecting that concept.
The specification does not provide how the improving efficiency and speed of providing customized control over a cluster and reducing the usage of computational resources would correct an error in a configuration of a containerized computing cluster and provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, other technology, and/or technical field. The improvement cited by the applicant is analysis as the following:
(a) "determining, by a processing device executing the control plane and during the session, a criterion associated with a configuration of the containerized computing cluster in the working memory based on a target configuration of the containerized computing cluster in the working memory" as drafted, recites a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement or opinion. One can mentally or manually with the aid of pen and paper judge/evaluate a criterion associated with a configuration of the containerized computing cluster in the working memory based on a target configuration of the containerized computing cluster in the working memory.
(b) "evaluating, by the rule engine and during the session, a rule pertaining to the target configuration against a fact" as drafted, recites a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. One can manually or mentally with the aid of pen and paper evaluate a rule pertaining to the target configuration against a fact, by the rule engine and during a session.
(c ) "outputting, during the session, the notification regarding the error to a client device” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. Mere presentation or output of a mental process generated recommendation does meaningfully limit the abstract idea nor provide integration into a practical application.
(d) The limitation “a processing device, memory and client device” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Note, the mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Based on the analysis concerning integration into a practical application, the examiner further finds that additional elements “improving efficiency and speed of providing customized control over a cluster and reducing the usage of computational resources for correcting an error in a configuration of a containerized computing cluster” are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components and functions. The language in the specification as indicated above describes the implementation in such broad terms so as to essentially define them as generic computer components performing generic instructions. Note, MPEP 2106.05(d) (“Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking”).
Applicant should duly note that outputting, during the session, notification regarding the error to a client device when determining that the condition specified by the rule matches the fact based on evaluating the rule against the fact, outputting, during the session, notification regarding the error to a client device is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer, other technology, and/or technical field. Furthermore, a computer component employed only for its most basic function… does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the those claims (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. Specifically, the mere automation of manual processes using generic computer does not constitute an improvement in computer technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
At Step 1:
With respect to subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it is determined that the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The limitation “creating, by a rule engine of a control plane that makes control and management decisions about a containerized computing cluster, a session for working memory associated with the control plane, wherein the containerized computing cluster comprises a plurality of virtualized computing environments running on one or more host computer systems” in claims 1, 10 and 19, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “creating, by a rule engine of a control plane that makes control and management decisions about a containerized computing cluster, a session for working memory associated with the control plane, wherein the containerized computing cluster comprises a plurality of virtualized computing environments running on one or more host computer systems”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “creating …..”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper create a session for working memory associated with the control plane.
The limitation “determining, by a processing device executing a-the control plane and during the session, a criterion associated with a configuration of the containerized computing cluster in the working memory based on a target configuration of the containerized computing cluster in the working memory” in claims 1, 10 and 19, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “in a file system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in a human mind. For example, the limitation “determining”, in the context of these claims encompasses one can mentally, or manually with the aid of pen and paper determines whether the managed directories satisfies certain criteria.
The limitation “evaluating, by the rule engine and during the session, a rule pertaining to the target configuration against a fact, wherein the fact reflects a state associated with the configuration of the containerized computing cluster, and wherein the rule specifies a condition including the criterion and an action to perform if the condition of the rule is satisfied, and wherein the action comprises outputting a notification regarding an error in the configuration of the containerized computing cluster; ” in claims 1, 10 and 19, as drafted, recites a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. One can manually or mentally with the aid of pen and paper evaluate a rule pertaining to the target configuration against a fact, by the rule engine and during a session.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
That the method is "implemented by a computing system” is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitation “responsive to determining that the condition specified by the rule matches the fact based on evaluating the rule against the fact, outputting, during the session, the notification regarding the error to a client device” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. Mere presentation or output of a mental process generated recommendation does meaningfully limit the abstract idea nor provide integration into a practical application. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
The limitation “a memory; processing device and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Note, the mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the "outputting ……" identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional in displaying information as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), " iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93" and "i. … transmitting data over a network, …Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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)".
With respect to the “a memory; processing device and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim appears to be ineligible.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The remaining independent claim 10 and 19 fall short the 35 USC 101 requirement under the same rationale.
The dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites “wherein determining the criterion is performed through a backward chaining functionality”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the backward chaining functionality comprises a query”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites “retrieving data of the containerized computing cluster from a data store; and storing the data in a working memory”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for retrieving data of the containerized computing cluster from a data store; and storing the data in a working memory, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 5 recites “extracting the fact from the data”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for extracting the fact from the data, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the configuration of the containerized computing cluster comprises at least one of a desired state or a current state of the containerized computing cluster”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites “validating the configuration of the containerized computing cluster”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for validating the configuration of the containerized computing cluster, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 8 recites “synchronizing data of the containerized computing cluster in -the working memory of the processing device with a data store of the containerized computing cluster”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for synchronizing data of the containerized computing cluster in -the working memory of the processing device with a data store of the containerized computing cluster, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 9 recites “specifies a corrective action with respect to the configuration of the containerized computing cluster to perform if the condition of the rule is satisfied, wherein the corrective action comprises at least one of: adding a central processing unit (CPU) to the containerized computing cluster, adding memory to the containerized computing cluster, or adding a new node to the containerized computing cluster, the method further comprising: adding the at least one of the CPU, the memory, or the new node to the containerized computing cluster based on the determination that the condition specified by the rule matches the fact”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 11 recites “wherein determining the criterion is performed through a backward chaining functionality”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the backward chaining functionality comprises a query”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 13 recites “retrieving data of the containerized computing cluster from a data store; and storing the data in a working memory”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for retrieving data of the containerized computing cluster from a data store; and storing the data in a working memory, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 14 recites “extracting the fact from the data”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for extracting the fact from the data, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the configuration of the containerized computing cluster comprises at least one of a desired state or a current state of the containerized computing cluster”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 16 recites “validating the configuration of the containerized computing cluster”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for validating the configuration of the containerized computing cluster, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 17 recites “synchronizing data of the containerized computing cluster in -the working memory of the processing device with a data store of the containerized computing cluster”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for synchronizing data of the containerized computing cluster in -the working memory of the processing device with a data store of the containerized computing cluster, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the configuration of the containerized computing cluster comprises at least one of a desired state or a current state of the containerized computing cluster”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the configuration of the containerized computing cluster comprises at least one of a desired state or a current state of the containerized computing cluster”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11483329 (involved in receiving log data associated with a containerized network environment. A logical graph is generated using a portion of the received log data in part by clustering multiple items into a node of the logical graph based on launching behaviors of components in the containerized network environment. The logical graph is used to respond to a query received from a computer (126) in part by providing data representing a portion of the logical graph to the computer in response to the query. The data represents the portion of the logical graph configured to be processed by the computer to display a visualization of the portion of the logical graph).
US 20220224707 (involved in gathering information associated with a location of a user device. Determination is made to check whether the user device is accessed at a known location based on the information associated with the location of the user device. Characterization of the known location is determined in responsive to determining that the user device is being accessed at the known location. Determination is made to check whether user device utilization is anomalous based on characterization of the known location. A characterization of an unknown location is determined).
US 20200201666 (involved in managing network for a server cluster nodes used to implement a hyper-converged infrastructure.)
US 20190095599 (involved in obtaining a content package that defines a behavior model and an anomaly. A default container image is updated based on the content package to generate a customized container image. A set of computing instances defined in a deployment configuration is deployed to execute the customized container image to detect occurrences of the anomaly via the behavior model. A subset of the set of computing instances is caused to execute a startup script to configure a subset of containers to execute a portion of code included in the customized container image.)
US 20160373481 A1 (involved in determining a correlation between a first element in a distributed computing environment and a second element in the distributed computing environment based on a measurement. A graph comprising nodes is generated with a first node of the nodes associated with the first element and a second node of the nodes associated with the second element based on the correlation. Determination is made that the measurement is in noncompliance with a rule from the graph. A security action is triggered based on a noncompliance that is determined.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN M CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-4032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30a-10p(Midflex).
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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571)272-9767. 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.
/JEAN M CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 April 14, 2026