DETAILED ACTION
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 action is responsive to the application filed 02/15/2023.
Claims 1-20 are presenting for examination. Claims 1, 10, and 18 are independent Claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (filed 02/15/2023) has been received, entered into the record, and considered.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed 02/15/2023 are accepted for examination purposes.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 16-18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
“the pre-determined frequency” (line 8) should read “the pre-determined refresh frequency”; and
“a the configuration profile category of the currently operating ML model” (line 9) should read “and a configuration profile category of the currently operating ML model”.
Claim 4: “the model refresh frequency” (line 5) should read “the refresh frequency”.
Claim 7: “the refresh frequency” (line 1) should read “the pre-determined refresh frequency”.
Claim 8: “at pre-determined refresh frequency” (line 3) should read “at the pre-determined refresh frequency”.
Claim 10: “the pre-determined frequency” (line 10) should read “the pre-determined refresh frequency”.
Claim 13: “the model refresh frequency” (line 6) should read “the refresh frequency”.
Claim 16: “the refresh frequency” (line 1) should read “the pre-determined refresh frequency”.
Claim 17:
“at pre-determined refresh frequency” (lines 3-4) should read “at the pre-determined refresh frequency”; and
“the currently operating ML model.;” (line 5) should read “the currently operating ML model[[.]];”.
Claim 18: “the pre-determined frequency” (line 11) should read “the pre-determined refresh frequency”.
Claim 20:
“at pre-determined refresh frequency” (lines 2-3) should read “at the pre-determined refresh frequency”; and
“the pre-determined frequency” (line 3) should read “the pre-determined refresh frequency”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The use of “executable” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the functions in the claims are actually performed.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 above are examined in anticipation of Applicant amending the claims so the claimed functions are executed by a computer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5 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 1-7, 9-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step1: determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If YES, proceed to Step 2A, broken into two prongs.
Step 2A, Prong 1: determine whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If YES, the analysis proceeds to the second prong.
Step 2A, Prong 2: determine whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If NOT, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B).
Step 2B: If any element or combination of elements in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claims 1-7 and 9:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 1-7 and 9 are directed to a method and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent claim 1 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“monitoring...usage of the currently operating ML model at a pre-determined refresh frequency, the pre-determined frequency based at least on the tenant configuration profile and a configuration profile category of the currently operating ML model”; “determining...whether the currently operating ML model exceeds a pre-determined accuracy threshold (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas);
Independent claim 1 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“automatically selecting...one of at least one subscription machine learning (ML) models in a model registry based on a tenant configuration profile of a tenant, responsive to receiving a request for the subscription ML model”, “deploying ... the automatically selected subscription ML model to the tenant as a currently operating ML model”, and “automatically deploying...a second subscription ML model from the model registry to the tenant in place of the currently operating ML model and becoming the currently operating ML model in response to the pre-determined accuracy threshold being exceeded” (these are insignificant extra-solution activities which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering and transmitting are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The element “a multi-tenant cloud server” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitations “receiving...at least one subscription machine learning (ML) model” and “storing...the at least one subscription ML model in the model registry... each of the at least one subscription ML models corresponding to a pre-determined configuration profile category, the pre-determined configuration profile category including an accuracy threshold and refresh frequency, wherein the pre-determined accuracy threshold is based at least on the accuracy threshold of the configuration profile category of the currently operating ML model” are insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering and storing are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)). The element “the multi-tenant cloud server” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitations “automatically updating...the tenant configuration profile using a dynamic configuration machine learning model, based at least on one of model performance of the currently operating ML model, cost data of the tenant, resource constraints of the tenant, or a service level agreement between the tenant and the multi-tenant cloud server” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The element “the multi-tenant cloud server” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitations “automatically updating the tenant configuration profile further comprises performing at least one of: automatically modifying the accuracy threshold corresponding to the tenant and the currently operating ML model, and automatically modifying the model refresh frequency corresponding to the tenant and the currently operating ML model, in the tenant configuration profile” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitations “the automatically selecting one of the at least one subscription ML models in the model registry further comprises: selecting the one of the at least one subscription ML models using a dynamic model selector (DMS) machine learning (ML) model based at least on infrastructure of the tenant, low/medium/high profile feature of the tenant, tenant configuration profile and subscription ML model configuration category” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 6, the limitations “automatically updating, by the multi-tenant cloud server, the configuration profile category of the currently running ML model based at least on historical model performance of the currently running ML model in one or more of a plurality of tenants using the currently running ML model” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 7, the element “the refresh frequency for the pre-determined configuration profile category of the currently running ML model is selected from the group of refresh frequencies consisting of: hourly, daily, weekly, semi-weekly, bi weekly, monthly, semi-monthly, bi-monthly, annually, and semi-annually” is an additional element that recites insignificant extra solution activity which does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 9, the element “the subscription ML model is a cloud cost forecasting model” is an additional element that recites insignificant extra solution activity which does not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claims 10-16:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 1-16 are directed to a computer program product and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent claim 10 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“monitor usage of the currently operating ML model at a pre-determined refresh frequency, the pre-determined frequency based at least on the tenant configuration profile and a configuration profile category of the currently operating ML model”; “determine whether the currently operating ML model exceeds a pre-determined accuracy threshold” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas).
Independent claim 10 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“automatically select one of at least one subscription machine learning (ML) models in a model registry based on a tenant configuration profile of a tenant, responsive to receiving a request for the subscription ML model”, “deploy the automatically selected subscription ML model to the tenant as a currently operating ML model”, and “automatically deploy a second subscription ML model from the model registry to the tenant in place of the currently operating ML model and becoming the currently operating ML model in response to the pre-determined accuracy threshold being exceeded” (these are insignificant extra-solution activities which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering and transmitting are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The elements “one or more computer readable storage media having program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable to” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 11-16 correspond to claims 2-7. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claims 18 and 19:
Step 1 Analysis
Claims 18 and 19 are directed to a system and therefore fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis
Independent claim 18 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
“monitor usage of the currently operating ML model at a pre-determined refresh frequency, the pre-determined frequency based at least on the tenant configuration profile and a configuration profile category of the currently operating ML model”; “determine whether the currently operating ML model exceeds a pre-determined accuracy threshold” (the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas).
Independent claim 18 recites the following additional elements, which, considered individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“automatically select one of at least one subscription machine learning (ML) models in a model registry based on a tenant configuration profile of a tenant, responsive to receiving a request for the subscription ML model”, “deploy the automatically selected subscription ML model to the tenant as a currently operating ML model”, and “automatically deploy a second subscription ML model from the model registry to the tenant in place of the currently operating ML model and becoming the currently operating ML model in response to the pre-determined accuracy threshold being exceeded” (these are insignificant extra-solution activities which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have identified mere data gathering and transmitting are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The elements “a processor, a computer readable memory, one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable to” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Babu et al. (US 20190102700).
The Babu reference was cited by Applicant in the IDS, filed 02/15/2023.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
As to Claim 1:
Babu teaches a computer implemented method ([0003]), comprising:
automatically selecting, by a multi-tenant cloud server, one of at least one subscription machine learning (ML) models in a model registry based on a tenant configuration profile of a tenant, responsive to receiving a request for the subscription ML model (the Abstract, [0005-0007] and [0040-0041], [0076], and [0094-0095]);
deploying, by the multi-tenant cloud server, the automatically selected subscription ML model to the tenant as a currently operating ML model (the Abstract, [0003], [0006], [0041-0044], [0062-0064], and [0113]);
monitoring, by the multi-tenant cloud server, usage of the currently operating ML model at a pre-determined refresh frequency, the pre-determined frequency based at least on the tenant configuration profile a configuration profile category of the currently operating ML model ([0039], [0082], [0106], [0122], and [0183]);
determining, by the multi-tenant cloud server, whether the currently operating ML model exceeds a pre-determined accuracy threshold ([0088-0089] and [0095-0097]); and
automatically deploying, by the multi-tenant cloud server, a second subscription ML model from the model registry to the tenant in place of the currently operating ML model and becoming the currently operating ML model in response to the pre-determined accuracy threshold being exceeded ([0067], [0088-0090], and [0113]).
As to Claim 2:
Babu teaches receiving by the multi-tenant cloud server, at least one subscription machine learning (ML) model; and storing, by the multi-tenant cloud server, the at least one subscription ML model in the model registry communicatively coupled to the multi-tenant cloud server, each of the at least one subscription ML models corresponding to a pre-determined configuration profile category, the pre-determined configuration profile category including an accuracy threshold and refresh frequency, wherein the pre-determined accuracy threshold is based at least on the accuracy threshold of the configuration profile category of the currently operating ML model ([0013-0014], [0040-0041], [0048], and [0089], [0097], [0113], and [0152]).
As to Claim 3:
Babu teaches automatically updating, by the multi-tenant cloud server, the tenant configuration profile using a dynamic configuration machine learning model, based at least on one of model performance of the currently operating ML model, cost data of the tenant, resource constraints of the tenant, or a service level agreement between the tenant and the multi-tenant cloud server ([0009], [0013-0014], and [0132]).
As to Claim 4:
Babu teaches automatically updating the tenant configuration profile further comprises performing at least one of: automatically modifying the accuracy threshold corresponding to the tenant and the currently operating ML model, and automatically modifying the model refresh frequency corresponding to the tenant and the currently operating ML model, in the tenant configuration profile ([0006-0007], [0040-0041], [0048], and [0088]).
As to Claim 5:
Babu teaches the automatically selecting one of the at least one subscription ML models in the model registry further comprises: selecting the one of the at least one subscription ML models using a dynamic model selector (DMS) machine learning (ML) model based at least on infrastructure of the tenant, low/medium/high profile feature of the tenant, tenant configuration profile and subscription ML model configuration category ([0006-0007], [0040-0041], [0076], and [0085]).
As to Claim 6:
Babu teaches automatically updating, by the multi-tenant cloud server, the configuration profile category of the currently running ML model based at least on historical model performance of the currently running ML model in one or more of a plurality of tenants using the currently running ML model ([0013-0014], [0037-0039], and [0132]).
As to Claim 7:
Babu teaches the refresh frequency for the pre-determined configuration profile category of the currently running ML model is selected from the group of refresh frequencies consisting of: hourly, daily, weekly, semi-weekly, bi weekly, monthly, semi-monthly, bi-monthly, annually, and semi-annually ([0082] and [0092]).
As to Claim 9:
Babu teaches the subscription ML model is a cloud cost forecasting model ([0046] and [0056]).
As to Claims 10-16:
Refer to the discussion of Claims 1-7 above, respectively, for rejections. Claims 10-16 are the same as Claims 1-7, except Claims 10-16 are computer program product Claims and Claims 1-7 are method Claims.
As to Claims 18 and 19:
Refer to the discussion of Claims 1 and 2 above, respectively, for rejections. Claims 18 and 19 are the same as Claims 1 and 2, except Claims 18 and 19 are system Claims and Claims 1 and 2 are method Claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, subject to the results of a final search by the Examiner.
Claims 17 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, subject to the 112 rejections detailed above, subject to the results of a final search by the Examiner.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact information
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MAIKHANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4093. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00 am – 5:30 pm). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TAMARA KYLE can be reached at (571)272-4241.
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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MAIKHANH NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144