DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-16 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 .
Specification
2. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the
invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
3. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
4. Step 1:
Claims 1-16 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of machines. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
5. Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 8, and 14: The limitations of “an external application program interface (API) allowing a user to access the cloud computing system and sending a job to at least one application; at least one application supervisor, wherein each application supervisor monitors a specific application and deploys at least one cloud worker to the job; a database storing status of the at least one cloud worker, job details and other telemetry data; an internal API coupled to the database; a state machine receiving the status of the at least one cloud worker, job details and other telemetry data via the internal API determining when servers need to be deleted, servers need to be created, when the at least one cloud worker needs to be deleted or additional cloud workers created.”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate that there is an external API that allows users to access the cloud computing system and sending a job to at least one application. Additionally, a person can also mentally observe that there is one application supervisor, wherein each application supervisor monitors a specific application and deploys at least one cloud worker to the job. A person can also observe and mentally judge that there is a database storing the status, job details, and other telemetry data of at least one cloud worker. Moreover, a person can judge and mentally evaluate that there is an internal API coupled to the database and a state machine that receives the status of the at least one cloud worker, job details and other telemetry data via the internal API. A person can then observe and mentally judge that the telemetry data is used in order to determine when servers need to be deleted or created, and when the at least one cloud worker needs to be deleted or additional cloud workers created. These ideas are also no more than generic computing components and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Yes, claim 1 recites judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
6. Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 8, and 14: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements – “A cloud computing system comprising:” which is merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that the claim 1 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
7. Step 2B:
Claims 1, 8, and 14: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, 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 elements amount to no more than generic computing components and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
8. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1, 8, and 14 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
9. With regard to claims 2, 9, and 14, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “comprising a user interface coupled to the external API”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that a user interface is coupled to the external API. Additionally, this is no more than field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, claims 2, 9, and 14 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 2, 9, and 14 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 2, 9, and 14 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
10. With regard to claims 3, 10, and 15, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “comprising wherein the user interface is a browser based user interface”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that the user interface is a browser based user interface. Additionally, this is no more than field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, claims 3, 10, and 15 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 3, 10, and 15 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 3, 10, and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
11. With regard to claims 4, 11, and 16, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “comprising wherein the user interface is a command line interface”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that the user interface is a command line interface. Additionally, this is no more than field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, claims 4, 11, and 16 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 4, 11, and 16 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 4, 11, and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
12. With regard to claims 5, 8, and 14, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “a plurality of application supervisors, wherein each application supervisor monitors a specific application; and a plurality of cloud workers, wherein the plurality of cloud workers are divided into a plurality of groups of cloud workers, each group of cloud workers associated with a specific application supervisor”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that there are a plurality of application supervisors, wherein each application supervisor monitors a specific application; and a plurality of cloud workers, wherein the plurality of cloud workers are divided into a plurality of groups of cloud workers, each group of cloud workers associated with a specific application supervisor. Further, claims 5, 8, and 14 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 5, 8, and 14 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 5, 8, and 14 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
13. With regard to claims 6, 12, and 14, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “comprising a plurality of servers, wherein the plurality of cloud workers are distributed among the plurality of servers”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that there are a plurality of servers, wherein the plurality of cloud workers are distributed among the plurality of servers. Further, claims 6, 12, and 14 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 6, 12, and 14 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 6, 12, and 14 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
14. With regard to claims 7, 8, and 14, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the state machine receives the status of the plurality of cloud workers, job details and other telemetry data via the internal API and determines whether additional servers need to be created, at least one of the plurality of servers needs to be deleted, at least one of the plurality of cloud workers need to be deleted or additional cloud workers needs to be created”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that the state machine receives the status of the plurality of cloud workers, job details and other telemetry data via the internal API in order to determine whether additional servers need to be created or deleted, and whether at least one of the plurality of cloud workers need to be deleted or additional cloud workers needs to be created. Further, claims 7, 8, and 14 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 7, 8, and 14 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 7, 8, and 14 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
15. Therefore, Claims 1-16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
16. Claims 1-4, and 6-16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Muraleedharan et al. US 20210326184 A1 in view of Williams et al. US 20210096926 A1.
17. With regard to claim 1, Muraleedharan teaches:
A cloud computing system comprising:
an external application program interface (API) allowing a user to access the cloud computing system and sending a job to at least one application ([0045] For example, this may be a web-hook URL to a customer's API that is to be notified with the job result when the job is complete, or error logs if the job fails or times out.; [0046] A job may be initiated by an API request made by an authorized customer application; [0056] When a customer application 16A makes an authorized API request, a job data structure object with the provided input may be created in the job queue 76; Examiner’s Note: This API is an external API that is used by the customer to send in a job request. This API is different than the internal APIs discussed throughout. The internal APIs are the stateless dispatch API 74A and the stateless job request handling API 74B.);
at least one application supervisor, wherein each application supervisor monitors a specific application and deploys at least one cloud worker to the job ([0029] As shown in FIG. 3, the management system 28 may be formed of a worker management unit 60 which uses worker optimization, a request handling unit 62, and a user interface 64. The worker management unit 60 may consist of a worker pool 68A of cloud workers 68 and a supervisor 70. The worker pool 68A may be a dynamically sized group of deployed cloud workers 68. Cloud workers 68 in the worker pool 68A may be idle if they are available to process a job, or busy if they are currently processing another job. Available workers can be assigned a job by the supervisor 70; Examiner’s Note: There is a supervisor that can assign a job to a worker.);
a database storing status of the at least one cloud worker, job details and other telemetry data ([0030] The request handling unit 62 may consists of a database 72 with cloud worker statuses, and job details, and a worker dispatch API 74 in a “dispatch” model architecture, and/or a job queue 76 in a “volunteer” model architecture as will be disclosed below.);
an internal API coupled to the database (Fig. 4, 72 Database, 74A Stateless Dispatch API; Examiner’s Note: The stateless dispatch API (internal API) is seen coupled to the database.);
a state machine receiving the status of the at least one cloud worker, job details and other telemetry data via the internal API determining when servers need to be deleted, servers need to be created, when the at least one cloud worker needs to be deleted or additional cloud workers created ([0017] The system may use current/active traffic data in real-time to manage and allocate server resources to cloud workers. The system may dynamically turn on, shut off, create, deploy, delete, and reserve servers depending on both predicted usage, and current request volume/traffic; [0052]; [0056] The stateless job request handling API 74B may be an Application Programming Interface (API) that allow the user applications 16A to request/queue jobs, track their status, and either retrieve results for completed jobs, error logs for failed jobs or a timeout; [0053] If a cloud worker 68 is not available, the stateless dispatch API 72A may add the job to the job queue 76. If the number of jobs in the job queue 76 is higher than a threshold, the job cue 76 may signal to the supervisor 70 to dispatch new cloud workers 68; Examiner’s Note: The system can dynamically turn off, shut off, create, deploy, delete, and reserve servers depending on predicted usage. This usage is stored in the database, which is coupled to an internal API (stateless dispatch API 74A). In order to dynamically adjust servers, this data must have been accessed from the database via the internal API. Likewise, the stateless dispatch API 74A can accept authorized requests from customers, create a job, and query the database for available cloud workers. If there are not enough cloud workers, the supervisor can dispatch new cloud workers (create new cloud workers).).
Muraleedharan fails to explicitly teach wherein also deleting a cloud worker when needed.
However, in analogous art, Williams teaches:
when the at least one cloud worker needs to be deleted ([0034] The worker configuration 132 allows customers to configure code such as third-party scripts to be executed in the cloud computing platform. For instance, the worker configuration 132 may allow the customer to upload one or more worker scripts and may allow the customer to specify when the worker script(s) are to be run. For instance, the customer may associate a rule that indicates when a worker script is to be run. By way of example, the control server 130 may allow the customer to configure a URL matching pattern that indicates the URL(s) for which the worker script is to run. The control server 130 may allow the customer to delete and update previously uploaded worker script(s).)
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 Muraleedharan with the teachings of Williams to also delete cloud workers when needed because it allows users to delete and update cloud workers, as discussed in Williams ([0034]). Therefore, allowing the user to making necessary changes for the overall efficiency of the system.
18. With regard to claim 2, Muraleedharan and Williams teach the cloud computing system of Claim 1 and Muraleedharan further teaches:
comprising a user interface coupled to the external API ([0008] A user interface allows users of the system to view and edit job statutes; track jobs; monitor status, load and operating parameters of each cloud worker; set and change rules for cloud worker and server deployments, and perform analytics on job results; Examiner’s Note: The user interface is analogous with an external API. The interface allows users to access the cloud computing system and edit jobs.).
19. With regard to claim 3, Muraleedharan teaches the cloud computing system of Claim 2 and Muraleedharan further teaches:
comprising wherein the user interface is a browser based user interface ([0021] The computing device 18 may be loaded with an operating system. The operating system of the computing device 18 may manage hardware and software resources of the computing device 18 and provide common services for computer programs running on the computing device 18. The computing device 18 may be loaded with a browser 20. The browser 20 may allow the computing device 18 to gain access to a network 22 such as a Local Area Network (LAN), a Wide Area Network (WAN) or similar type of networks. The browser 20 may be a commercially available web browser Microsoft® Internet Explorer, Google® Chrome, Mozilla® Firefox, Apple® Safari, similar browsing applications, a remote network access software, or similar types of software for connecting to a network. By connecting to the network 22, the computing device 18 may access a webpage 24 associated with the platform 12 hosted on the server 14 thereby gaining access to use the dynamic allocation and resource management system 28; Examiner’s Note: The computing device can be loaded with an operating system that allows users to access a webpage and use the dynamic allocation and resource management system.).
20. With regard to claim 4, Muraleedharan teaches the cloud computing system of Claim 2 and Muraleedharan further teaches:
comprising wherein the user interface is a command line interface ([0090] The cloud worker creation utility/wizard may be a web-based application, a local Graphical User Interface (GUI) application that runs on an operating system, or a set of commands to be run on the command line, terminal, or command prompt; Examiner’s Note: The application to create and monitor cloud workers can be a set of commands to be run on the command line, terminal, or command prompt.).
21. With regard to claim 6, Muraleedharan teaches the cloud computing system of Claim 5 and Muraleedharan further teaches:
comprising a plurality of servers, wherein the plurality of cloud workers are distributed among the plurality of servers ([0008] The worker management unit dynamically allocates and manages deployment of the cloud workers to a plurality of servers; Examiner’s Note: There are a plurality of servers and cloud workers are allocated to each server.).
22. With regard to claim 7, Muraleedharan teaches the cloud computing system of Claim 6 and Muraleedharan further teaches:
wherein the state machine receives the status of the plurality of cloud workers, job details and other telemetry data via the internal API and determines whether additional servers need to be created, at least one of the plurality of servers needs to be deleted, at least one of the plurality of cloud workers need to be deleted or additional cloud workers needs to be created ([0017] The system may use current/active traffic data in real-time to manage and allocate server resources to cloud workers. The system may dynamically turn on, shut off, create, deploy, delete, and reserve servers depending on both predicted usage, and current request volume/traffic; [0052]; [0056] The stateless job request handling API 74B may be an Application Programming Interface (API) that allow the user applications 16A to request/queue jobs, track their status, and either retrieve results for completed jobs, error logs for failed jobs or a timeout; [0053] If a cloud worker 68 is not available, the stateless dispatch API 72A may add the job to the job queue 76. If the number of jobs in the job queue 76 is higher than a threshold, the job cue 76 may signal to the supervisor 70 to dispatch new cloud workers 68; Examiner’s Note: The system can dynamically turn off, shut off, create, deploy, delete, and reserve servers depending on predicted usage. This usage is stored in the database, which is coupled to an internal API (stateless dispatch API 74A). In order to dynamically adjust servers, this data must have been accessed from the database via the internal API. Likewise, the stateless dispatch API 74A can accept authorized requests from customers, create a job, and query the database for available cloud workers. If there are not enough cloud workers, the supervisor can dispatch new cloud workers (create new cloud workers).).
Muraleedharan fails to explicitly teach wherein also deleting a cloud worker when needed.
However, in analogous art, Williams teaches:
when the at least one cloud worker needs to be deleted ([0034] The worker configuration 132 allows customers to configure code such as third-party scripts to be executed in the cloud computing platform. For instance, the worker configuration 132 may allow the customer to upload one or more worker scripts and may allow the customer to specify when the worker script(s) are to be run. For instance, the customer may associate a rule that indicates when a worker script is to be run. By way of example, the control server 130 may allow the customer to configure a URL matching pattern that indicates the URL(s) for which the worker script is to run. The control server 130 may allow the customer to delete and update previously uploaded worker script(s).)
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 Muraleedharan with the teachings of Williams to also delete cloud workers when needed because it allows users to delete and update cloud workers, as discussed in Williams ([0034]). Therefore, allowing the user to making necessary changes for the overall efficiency of the system.
23. Regarding claim 8, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1, 5, and 7 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
24. Regarding claim 9, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
25. Regarding claim 10, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
26. Regarding claim 11, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
27. Regarding claim 12, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
28. Regarding claim 13, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 7 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
29. Regarding claim 14, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claims 1-2 and 5-7 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
30. Regarding claim 15, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
31. Regarding claim 16, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
32. Claims 5, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Muraleedharan et al. US 20210326184 A1 and Williams et al. US 20210096926 A1, as applied in claim 1, in view of Walossek et al. US 20220089182 A1.
33. With regard to claim 5, Muraleedharan teaches the cloud computing system of Claim 1 and Muraleedharan further teaches:
a plurality of cloud workers, wherein the plurality of cloud workers are divided into a plurality of groups of cloud workers, each group of cloud workers associated with a specific application supervisor ([0029] As shown in FIG. 3, the management system 28 may be formed of a worker management unit 60 which uses worker optimization, a request handling unit 62, and a user interface 64. The worker management unit 60 may consist of a worker pool 68A of cloud workers 68 and a supervisor 70; Examiner’s Note: Each group of cloud workers is associated with a single supervisor.).
Muraleedharan fails to explicitly teach a plurality of application supervisors, wherein each application supervisor monitors a specific application.
However, in analogous art, Walossek teaches:
a plurality of application supervisors, wherein each application supervisor monitors a specific application ([0022] There may be multiple applications 15, 16, 17, 18, communication units 23, and backend connectors 24 which are controlled and adapted by a shared supervisor 20; it is equally possible that multiple supervisors 20 are available and supervision 11 and adaptation 12 take place in a separate or coordinated manner; Examiner’s Note: A supervisor control applications, communication units, and backend connectors. There is the possibility of having multiple supervisors that can “take place in a separate or coordinated manner.” Under broadest reasonable interpretation, separate and coordinate could mean that each supervisor separately monitors a specific application, while coordinating with the system as a whole.); and
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 Muraleedharan with the teachings of Walossek where a plurality of application supervisors, wherein each application supervisor monitors a specific application. This allows the supervisor to supervise and adapt applications in a coordinated way so that applications can be adapted based on their requirements, as discussed in Walossek ([0022]). This allows the system to work more efficiently as a whole.
34. Regarding claim 8, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1, 5, and 7 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
35. Regarding claim 14, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claims 1-2 and 5-7 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN-AN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6147. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 ET.
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 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.
/A.N.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/Aimee Li/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195