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 .
This non-final office action is responsive to amendment filed on 09/26/2025.
a. Claims 1, 3-8 and 10-20 are pending in this application.
b. Claims 1, 3-6 and 10-15 has been amended.
c. Claims 2 and 9 were previously canceled.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1-6, 9, 11-14 and 17-20 were objected to because of minor informalities. The applicant's amendment/arguments, see page 1-9 of REMARKS, filed 09/26/2025, with respect to Claim Objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections to claims 1, 3-6, 11-14 and 17-20 (claims 2, 9 are canceled) made in the non-final Office Action mailed on 03/28/2025 have been withdrawn.
Claims 14 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 14 and 19 depend on canceled claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
3. Previously filed claim set included claim 9 limitations “a parameter configuration unit ...”, “a computing resource scheduling module ...” and “an automatic orchestrating module ...” that were interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) used a generic placeholder that was coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function. The applicant's amendment/arguments, see page 1-9 of REMARKS, filed 09/26/2025, with respect to Claim Interpretation have been fully considered and claim 9 was canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. The applicant's amendment/ arguments, see page 1-9 of REMARKS, filed 09/26/2025, with respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claim 10-14 under 35 U.S.C. 101 made in the non-final Office Action mailed on 03/28/2025 have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim 1, 3-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites obtaining parameters configured by a user through a configuration page, determining a total amount of computing resources required by a computing task after the computing task is obtained, determining computing resources corresponding to the bidding instance and computing resources corresponding to the on-demand instance based on existing computing resources, the total amount of the computing resources and the proportion, applying for the computing resources from a cloud provider based on the computing resources corresponding to the bidding instance and the computing resources corresponding to the on-demand instance, before applying for the computing resources from the cloud provider, computing a difference value between current remaining computing resources and the total amount of the computing resources when a computing resource recovering event of the cloud provider or a downtime event is monitored, applying for the computing resources from the cloud provider based on the difference value, the configured parameters, the computing resources corresponding to the bidding instance and the computing resources corresponding to the on-demand instance.
Above listed limitations of claim 1, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic step of obtaining parameters. That is, other than reciting “obtaining parameters … through a configuration page,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being mathematical concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites an additional element “applying for the computing resources from a cloud provider based on the computing resources corresponding to the bidding instance and the computing resources corresponding to the on-demand instance; applying for the computing resources from the cloud provider based on the difference value, the configured parameters, the computing resources corresponding to the bidding instance and the computing resources corresponding to the on-demand instance”. The limitation is claimed at a high level of generality and describes requesting for computing resources based on the mathematical computation. The limitation amounts to mere resource requesting. It is necessary to apply for the resource in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform the calculations to determine available computing resources. The limitation does not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim. Therefore, this additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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, these additional element of applying for the computing resources from the cloud provider represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible. The claim is not patent eligible.
The claim 3 recites the step of “obtaining the parameters configured by the user through the configuration page further includes: obtaining a bidding mode of the bidding instance, wherein the bidding mode includes a floating bidding mode and a fixed price mode; in the floating bidding mode, the computing resources corresponding to the bidding instance and the computing resources corresponding to the on-demand instance are directly determined based on the configured parameters; and in the fixed bidding mode, if a set bidding price is lower than a market price, the computing resources corresponding to the bidding instance and the computing resources corresponding to the on-demand instance are determined again based on the configured parameters after the cloud provider recovers the computing resources.”
Above listed limitations of claim 3, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic step of obtaining bidding mode parameters that is used for mathematical calculation to determine the computing resources. That is, other than reciting “obtaining a bidding mode of the bidding instance, wherein the bidding mode includes a floating bidding mode and a fixed price mode” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being mathematical concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites an additional element “obtaining a bidding mode of the bidding instance, wherein the bidding mode includes a floating bidding mode and a fixed price mode”. The limitation is claimed at a high level of generality and describes obtaining parameter for different bidding modes. The limitation amounts to mere obtaining parameter for mathematical calculation. It is necessary to receive parameters in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform the calculations to determine required resources for computing task. The limitation does not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim. Therefore, this additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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, these additional element of obtaining parameter for different bidding modes represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
The claim 4 recites the step of “obtaining types of instances configured by the user through the configuration page; and determining a number of the required different instance types based on the types of the instances and the total amount of computing resources required by the computing task in a computing resource creation process.”
Above listed limitations of claim 4, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic step of obtaining instance types through configuration page that is used for mathematical calculation to determine the amount of computing resources. That is, other than reciting “obtaining types of instances configured by the user through the configuration page” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being mathematical concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites an additional element “obtaining types of instances configured by the user through the configuration page”. The limitation is claimed at a high level of generality and describes obtaining parameter including instance types. The limitation amounts to mere obtaining parameter for mathematical calculation. It is necessary to receive parameters in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform the calculations to determine required resources for computing task. The limitation does not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim. Therefore, this additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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, these additional element of obtaining parameter for instance types represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
The claim 5 recites the step of “obtaining a percentage of time delay errors of the tasks configured by the user through the configuration page.”
Above listed limitations of claim 5, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic step of obtaining percentage of time delay errors of the tasks through the configuration page that is used for mathematical calculation. That is, other than reciting “obtaining percentage of time delay errors of the tasks configured by the user through the configuration page” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being mathematical concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites an additional element “obtaining percentage of time delay errors of the tasks configured by the user through the configuration page”. The limitation is claimed at a high level of generality and describes obtaining parameter including percentage of time delay errors of the tasks. The limitation amounts to mere obtaining parameter for mathematical calculation. It is necessary to receive parameters in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform the calculations to determine required resources for computing task. The limitation does not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim. Therefore, this additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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, these additional element of obtaining percentage of time delay errors of the tasks represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
The claim 6 recites the step of “obtaining a maximum value of the computing resources configured by the user through the configuration page; and obtaining a minimum value of the computing resources configured by the user through the configuration page.”
Above listed limitations of claim 6, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic step of obtaining a maximum and a minimum value of the computing resources through the configuration page that is used for mathematical calculation. That is, other than reciting “obtaining a maximum value and a minimum value of the computing resources configured by the user through the configuration page” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being mathematical concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites an additional element “obtaining a maximum value of the computing resources configured by the user through the configuration page; and obtaining a minimum value of the computing resources configured by the user through the configuration page”. The limitation is claimed at a high level of generality and describes obtaining parameter including obtaining a maximum value and a minimum value of the computing resources. The limitation amounts to mere obtaining parameter for mathematical calculation. It is necessary to receive parameters in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform the calculations to determine required resources for computing task. The limitation does not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim. Therefore, this additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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, these additional element of obtaining a maximum value and a minimum value of the computing resources represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
The claim 7 recites the step of “monitoring existing computing resources; and releasing idle computing resources if the idle computing resources exist in the existing computing resources.”
Above listed limitations of claim 7, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic step of monitoring existing computing resources. That is, other than reciting “monitoring existing computing resources” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being mathematical concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites an additional element “releasing idle computing resources if the idle computing resources exist in the existing computing resources”. The limitation is claimed at a high level of generality and describes releasing the idle computing resource. The limitation amounts to mere release of idle computing resource that is not used. The limitation does not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim. Therefore, this additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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, these additional element of releasing of computing resources represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
With respect to claim 8, when analyzed as a whole is held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) “the proportion of the bidding instance to the on-demand instance is 1:1; 2:1; 5:1; 10:1; and/or 1:0” fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea under mathematical concepts without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, they recite limitations according to previously rejected claims 8, 6, 4, 3, 2 and 1. Additionally they recite “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, being used for storing computer instructions”.
Above listed limitations of claims 10-15, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concept and nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being mathematical concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites an additional element “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, being used for storing computer instructions”. The computer readable storage medium is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 non-transitory computer readable storage medium for storing computer instructions is 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 claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, they recite limitations according to previously rejected claims 8, 5, 3, 2 and 1. Additionally they recite “the memory is used for storing a computer program which can be executed by the at least one processor and the computer program is executed by the at least one processor, so that the at least one processor can be used for executing the computing resource configuration method for enterprise cloudification”.
Above listed limitations of claims 10-15, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concept and nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being mathematical concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites an additional element “memory is used for storing a computer program which can be executed by the at least one processor”. The memory storing a computer program and processor executing the computing program stored is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 memory storing a computer program and processor executing the computing program stored is 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 claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term "a kind of electronic equipment" in claims 16-20 is indefinite. The term “a kind of electronic equipment” is not defined by the claim, the specification in page 13 describes “a kind of electronic equipment” being one in fig. 3. However, from the claim language or the provided specification, the scope of the term “a kind” cannot be ascertained. Examiner would suggest the language “an electronic equipment” for above claims.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUJANA KHAKURAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3704. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:30AM - 6:30PM.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUJANA KHAKURAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2453
/KAMAL B DIVECHA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2453