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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to Request for Continued Examination transmittal received after The Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision rendered on 12/12/2025. Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, 12, 17, 18 are amended. Claims 21-27 are newly added. Claims 3-7, 13-16 and 19 are previously cancelled. Consequently, claims 1, 2, 8, ,10,11,12,1718, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 are pending examination.
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, 2, 8, ,10,11,12,1718, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 17 are drawn to a system, claim(s) 11 is drawn to a method. As such, claims 1, 11, and 17 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One.
Claim 1 recites maintaining and manipulating numerical values and executing an action when a numerical condition is met. The claim recites: receiving a workload integer value and a time integer value, maintain a counter, incrementing the counter by workload value, determining when the counter exceeds the time value, executing w workload when the condition is satisfied, decrementing the counter. These limitations describe a mathematical relationship between two integers values using basic arithmetic operations and a comparison condition. Mathematical relationships and calculations are identified as abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims recite mathematical concept, which is a judicial exception.
Step 2S, prong Two.
The claims recite a processing device and a rate limiter. However, these elements simply perform conventional computer functions such as: receiving data, maintaining counters, performing arithmetic operations, comparing values, triggering execution. These functions simply apply the mathematical relationship using generic computing components. The claims also recite network flows, virtual machines, network interface cards and data processing units. However, limiting the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The clams do not recite any specific improvement to computer hardware or networking technology. Instead, the claims only apply the mathematical relationship to control when the workloads are executed. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B.
The additional elements in the claims include a processing device, a rate limiter, a counter, a register and executing workloads such as transmitting packets or processing data. These elements are generic components performing routine functions. Implementing a mathematical relationship on conventional computer hardware does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to paten ineligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 2/10/2026. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the following:
Argument 1- Applicant cites 2019 PEG and Alice Step 1, 2A, 2B.
Response: Simply citing the framework does not demonstrate error in the
rejection. Under Step 2A, Prong One, the claim recites: integer values, counter incrementing, threshold comparison, subtraction. These are mathematical operations implementing a ration-based rule. The board previously determined similar claims were directed to mathematical concepts. The present amended claims do not change the mathematical character of the claims.
Argument 2- the claims have been materially amended and do not preempt all uses of integer arithmetic or counters.
Response: Applicant’s notes that the claims have been amended and do not preempt all uses of integer arithmetic or counters. Even though preemption is important, it is not by itself, the controlling test for eligibility. The proper question remains whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. The amened claim recites, a relationship between two integer values, arithmetic operations implementing a ration, and execution triggered when a mathematical condition is reached. Although the claims are limited to rate-limiting context, the invention remains applying a mathematical relationship using basic arithmetic operations. Therefore, the amendments do not change the conclusion under Step 2A, Prong One that the claims recite a mathematical concept.
Argument 3- The claims are directed to a specific processing deice and rate limiter, not mathematics in the abstract.
Response: The applicant emphasizes that the claims recite a “processing device” and ‘rate limiter” and are tied to hardware. However, reciting a device or component does not, by itself, remove the abstraction when the device performs conventional computing operations. The claims do not recite any specific hardware architecture, specialized circuitry, a new processor nor any particular timing mechanism. Instead, the rate limiter performs maintaining a counter, incrementing, comparing and decrementing. These are well understood and fundamental computing operations. The claims appear to implement a mathematical relationship using conventional computing components rather than defining a new hardware structure.
Argument 4- The invention cannot practically be performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Response: the abstract idea identified here is categorized as a mathematical concept rather than mental process. Mathematical algorithms remain abstract even if their practical implementation requires a computer or occurs at speed beyond human capability. The claims recite arithmetic operations on integers and comparison condition. These operation s fall within the category of mathematical concepts. The fact that the claimed system operates in a technological environment or at network speeds does not change the mathematical nature of the recited operations.
Argument 5- the claims improve device operation and are rooted in technology.
Response: Improving numerical precision may provide practical benefit. However, improving the accuracy of a mathematical calculations does not necessarily establish an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself. The claims do not recite structural modification to hardware, changes to a processor architecture or new protocol. The claims perform arithmetic using integer values rather than another numeric representation. As currently claimed, the claim appears to improve how a calculation is performed rather than how the computer or network device itself operates at a hardware level.
Argument 6- the claims satisfy Step 2A, prong Two.
Response: The claims apply operations to determine when a workload should execute. The additional elements such as counters, registers, OS requests and execution of workloads appear to perform their conventional functions. Although the claims limit execution to certain situations (such as packet transmission, encryption, data processing), these appear to be typical computing activities that follow mathematical operations. The amended claims do not clearly recite technological improvement beyond applying the mathematical relationship in a computing environment. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Argument 7- Step 2B, inventive concept.
The additional elements recited in the claims such as counter, storage in a register, receiving parameters from an operating system, parallel execution, network interface card, appear to be conventional computing components performing conventional functions. The claims do not recite specific unconventional circuitry or structure. Rather they apply a mathematical ratio using ordinary computing elements. Therefore, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. In summary, the claims as currently presented are directed to a mathematical relationship using conventional components which does not render the claims patent eligible.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights