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
1. This action is in response to the application filed 5/3//2023.
2. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “hose” (line 7) needs to be rewritten as “host”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
4. Claims 4-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The claim language in the following claims is not clearly understood: (i) As to claim 4, it is unclear whether “a new utility process” (line 5) refers to “a new utility process” (line 9 of claim 1). Correction is required.
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.
5. Claims 1, 3-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As to claim 1:
Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a system comprising at least one processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the system to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising steps, and is therefore directed to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
…receiving, from an application, a request for processing by a service;
determining, based on a set of criteria associated with the request, whether a process pool includes a utility process with which to host the service….
These limitations can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The additional elements recited in claim 1 include:
at least one processor;
memory storing instructions…
…based on determining …, generating a new utility process for the service based on the set of criteria; and
configuring the new utility process to host the service for the application.
These limitations recited is mere instructions to implement the limitations which can be performed in the human mind, i.e., the judicial exception, on a computer, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Furthermore, these limitations recited amounts to insignificant extra solution activity of necessary data outputting, as it is merely outputting the result of the judicial exception, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Furthermore, the combination of additional elements results in mere instructions to implement the exception on a computer and outputting the result of the exception, which is insignificant extra- solution activity. This combination of additional elements fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Regarding the additional elements, they are reciting generic computing components perform the steps which can be performed in the human mind, which is mere instructions to apply the exception. The courts have found adding mere instructions to apply the exception is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. These limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities which amount to necessary data outputting.
Claim 1 as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions and the claim is not eligible.
As to claim 3, it is a dependent claim of claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 3 recites: based on determining the process pool includes a utility process with which to host the service, configuring the utility process of the process pool to host the service for the application, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 3 is not eligible.
As to claim 4, it is a dependent claim of claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 4 recites: based on determining the process pool includes a utility process with which to host the service, determining whether the utility process can be used to host the service, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 4 is not eligible.
As to claim 5, it is a dependent claim of claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 5 recites: determining whether the utility process has exceeded a resource limit, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 5 is not eligible.
As to claim 6, it is a dependent claim of claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 6 recites: adding the new utility process to a process pool map that includes an association between the new utility process and a utility process descriptor for the utility process, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 6 is not eligible.
As to claim 7, it is a dependent claim of claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 7 recites: evaluating the process pool map based on the set of criteria, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 7 is not eligible.
As to claim 8:
Step 1:
Claim 8 is directed to a method for process pooling comprising steps, and is therefore directed to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 8 recites the limitations:
… receiving, from an application, a request for processing by a service;
determining, based on the request, a set of criteria for a utility process with which to host the service….
These limitations can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Accordingly, claim 8 recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The additional elements recited in claim 1 include:
Identifying ,.., a preexisting utility process to host the service; and
configuring the identified utility process to host the service for the application.
These limitations recited is mere instructions to implement the limitations which can be performed in the human mind, i.e., the judicial exception, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Regarding the additional elements, they are reciting the steps which can be performed in the human mind, which is mere instructions to apply the exception. The courts have found adding mere instructions to apply the exception is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. These limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities which amount to necessary data outputting.
Claim 8 as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions and the claim is not eligible.
As to claim 9, it is a dependent claim of claim 8, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 8. Further, claim 9 recites: the set of criteria comprises at least one of: security criteria; privacy criteria; or reliability criteria, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 8, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 9 is not eligible.
As to claim 10, it is a dependent claim of claim 8, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 8. Further, claim 10 recites: the set of criteria is determined based on at least one of the application or content of the application, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 8, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 10 is not eligible.
As to claim 11, it is a dependent claim of claims 8 and 10, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in those claims. Claim 11 recites: the application is a web browsing application and the content is a website, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 8 and 10, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 11 is not eligible.
As to claim 12, it is a dependent claim of claims 8 and 10-11, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in those claims. Claim 12 recites: the request is a first request that is associated with a first website; the service is a first service; and the method further comprises: receiving a second request for processing by a second service..., which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 8 and 10-11, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 12 is not eligible.
As to claim 13, it is a dependent claim of claims 8 and 10-12, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in those claims. Claim 12 recites: the set of criteria associated with the second website indicates a higher security level than the set of criteria associated with the first website., which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 8 and 10-12, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 13 is not eligible.
As to claim 14, it recites substantially the same limitations as those recited in claim 1, respectively. Thus, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are not eligible.
As to claim 16, it is a dependent claim of claim 14, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 14. Claim 16 recites: the request is a first request; the service is a first service; and the method further comprises: receiving a second request for processing by a second service..., which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process. Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 14, the additional element is not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 16 is not eligible.
As to claims 17-20, they recite substantially the same limitations as those recited in claims 4-7, respectively. Thus, for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 4-7, claims 17-20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
6. Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamboj U.S Patent No. 10,824,474.
As to claim 1, Kamboj teaches a system comprising:
at least one processor (…computer system 1000 may be a uniprocessor system including one processor 1010, or a multiprocessor system including several processors 1010…, lines 42-44 column 19); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the system to perform a set of operations (…System memory 1020 may store program instructions and/or data accessible by processor 1010…, lines 8-9 column 20), the set of operations comprising:
receiving, from an application (…a client 270 may encompass an application such as a database application (or user interface thereof), a media application, an office application or any other application that may make use of storage resources in data storage service(s) 210 to store and/or access the data to implement various applications…, lines 1-6 column 8), a request for processing by a service (…code execution requests 502 to be submitted to program execution service…, lines 33-34 column 13);
determining, based on a set of criteria associated with the request, whether a process pool includes a utility process with which to host the service (…Portion resource allocation requests 132 may specify performance characteristics or other requirements, which resource manager 130 may analyze, evaluate, or otherwise compare with the computing resources of pool(s) 140 to make an allocation that satisfies (or comes closest to satisfying) the requirements for the portion…, lines 18-24 column 4);
based on determining the process pool does not include a utility process with which to host the service, generating a new utility process for the service based on the set of criteria; and
configuring the new utility process to host the service for the application (…As dynamic allocations of resources are performed, program execution service 230 may utilize the allocated computing resource(s), such as software containers, virtual compute instances, or servers to execute the portions of the ETL program. In some embodiments, program execution service 230 may procure or otherwise configure computing resource(s) if no preconfigured computing resources from a pool of computing resources satisfy the requirements…, lines 57-64 column 10).
As to claim 2, Kamboj further teaches establishing an inter-process communication (IPC) channel between the application and the new utility process (…To perform a web services request, a network-based services client may assemble a message including the request and convey the message to an addressable endpoint (e.g., a Uniform Resource Locator (URL)) corresponding to the web service, using an Internet-based application layer transfer protocol such as Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP). In some embodiments, web services may be implemented using Representational State Transfer ("RESTful") techniques rather than message-based techniques. For example, a web service implemented according to a RESTful technique may be invoked through parameters included within an HTTP method such as PUT, GET, or DELETE, rather than encapsulated within a SOAP message…, lines 24-37 column 22).
As to claim 3, Kamboj further teaches based on determining the process pool includes a utility process with which to host the service, configuring the utility process of the process pool to host the service for the application (…Portion resource allocation requests 132 may specify performance characteristics or other requirements, which resource manager 130 may analyze, evaluate, or otherwise compare with the computing resources of pool(s) 140 to make an allocation that satisfies (or comes closest to satisfying) the requirements for the portion…, lines 18-24 column 4).
As to claim 4, Kamboj further teaches the set of operations further comprises:
based on determining the process pool includes a utility process with which to host the service, determining whether the utility process can be used to host the service (…Portion resource allocation requests 132 may specify performance characteristics or other requirements, which resource manager 130 may analyze, evaluate, or otherwise compare with the computing resources of pool(s) 140 to make an allocation that satisfies (or comes closest to satisfying) the requirements for the portion…, lines 18-24 column 4); and
based on determining the utility process cannot be used to host the service:
generating a new utility process; and
configuring the new utility process to host the service for the application (…As dynamic allocations of resources are performed, program execution service 230 may utilize the allocated computing resource(s), such as software containers, virtual compute instances, or servers to execute the portions of the ETL program. In some embodiments, program execution service 230 may procure or otherwise configure computing resource(s) if no preconfigured computing resources from a pool of computing resources satisfy the requirements…, lines 57-64 column 10).
As to claim 5, Kamboj further teaches determining whether the utility process can be used to host the service comprises determining whether the utility process has exceeded a resource limit (…Portion resource allocation requests 132 may specify performance characteristics or other requirements, which resource manager 130 may analyze, evaluate, or otherwise compare with the computing resources of pool(s) 140 to make an allocation that satisfies (or comes closest to satisfying) the requirements for the portion…, lines 18-24 column 4).
As to claim 6, Kamboj further teaches adding the new utility process to a process pool map that includes an association between the new utility process and a utility process descriptor for the utility process (…resource manager 402 may collect metrics 570 from hosts 550 to assess the allocation decisions made at resource manager 402. For example, resource manager 402 may store historical allocation decisions paired with performance metrics of the allocated resources in order to apply machine learning or other statistical analysis to adjust allocation decision models (e.g., to modify mappings, alter selection weights or criteria, or perform other allocation decision adjustments). Resource manger 402 may also learn via the metrics when resources have been released (e.g., by receiving status information) in order to initiate clean up or other operations to return the resources to a pool for performing other work…, line 57 column 15 to line 2 column 16).
As to claim 7, Kamboj further teaches determining whether the process pool includes a utility process with which to host the service comprises evaluating the process pool map based on the set of criteria (…resource manager 402 may collect metrics 570 from hosts 550 to assess the allocation decisions made at resource manager 402. For example, resource manager 402 may store historical allocation decisions paired with performance metrics of the allocated resources in order to apply machine learning or other statistical analysis to adjust allocation decision models (e.g., to modify mappings, alter selection weights or criteria, or perform other allocation decision adjustments). Resource manger 402 may also learn via the metrics when resources have been released (e.g., by receiving status information) in order to initiate clean up or other operations to return the resources to a pool for performing other work…, line 57 column 15 to line 2 column 16).
As to claim 8, Kamboj teaches a method for process pooling, the method comprising:
receiving, from an application (…a client 270 may encompass an application such as a database application (or user interface thereof), a media application, an office application or any other application that may make use of storage resources in data storage service(s) 210 to store and/or access the data to implement various applications…, lines 1-6 column 8), a request for processing by a service (…code execution requests 502 to be submitted to program execution service…, lines 33-34 column 13);
determining, based on the request, a set of criteria for a utility process with which to host the service;
identifying, from a process pool and based on the determined set of criteria, a preexisting utility process to host the service; and
configuring the identified utility process to host the service for the application (…Portion resource allocation requests 132 may specify performance characteristics or other requirements, which resource manager 130 may analyze, evaluate, or otherwise compare with the computing resources of pool(s) 140 to make an allocation that satisfies (or comes closest to satisfying) the requirements for the portion…, lines 18-24 column 4).
As to claim 9, Kamboj further teaches the set of criteria comprises reliability criteria (…requests for resource allocation may indicate one or more performance characteristics or other requirements. In some embodiments, these requirements may be treated strictly so that the requirements have to be satisfied in order to successfully allocate resources for the requested portion. For example, the requirements may indicate a minimum number of processor cores, type of network configuration or device (e.g., a minimum network bandwidth), memory capacity to be allocated. In some embodiments, different combinations of resources may satisfy the same requirements, and thus resource allocation 408 may select the resources in order to conserve resources in pool…, lines 7-19 column 12).
As to claim 10, Kamboj further teaches the set of criteria is determined based on at least one of the application or content of the application (…Portion resource allocation requests 132 may specify performance characteristics or other requirements, which resource manager 130 may analyze, evaluate, or otherwise compare with the computing resources of pool(s) 140 to make an allocation that satisfies (or comes closest to satisfying) the requirements for the portion…, lines 18-24 column 4).
As to claim 11, Kamboj further teaches the application is a web browsing application and the content is a website (…a given client 270 may include a suitable version of a web browser, or may include a plug-in module or other type of code module may execute as an extension to or within an execution environment provided by a web browser…, lines 64-67 column 7).
As to claim 12, Kamboj further teaches the request is a first request that is associated with a first website; the service is a first service (…a given client 270 may include a suitable version of a web browser, or may include a plug-in module or other type of code module may execute as an extension to or within an execution environment provided by a web browser…, lines 64-67 column 7); and
the method further comprises:
receiving a second request for processing by a second service, wherein the second request is associated with a second website;
determining, based on a set of criteria associated with the second website, that the process pooi does not include a utility process with which to host the second service; and
generating a new utility process for the second service based on the set of criteria associated with the second website (…As dynamic allocations of resources are performed, program execution service 230 may utilize the allocated computing resource(s), such as software containers, virtual compute instances, or servers to execute the portions of the ETL program. In some embodiments, program execution service 230 may procure or otherwise configure computing resource(s) if no preconfigured computing resources from a pool of computing resources satisfy the requirements…, lines 57-64 column 10).
As to claims 14-15, note the discussions of claims 1-2 above, respectively.
As to claim 16, Kamboj further teaches the request is a first request; the service is a first service (…a given client 270 may include a suitable version of a web browser, or may include a plug-in module or other type of code module may execute as an extension to or within an execution environment provided by a web browser…, lines 64-67 column 7); and
the method further comprises:
receiving a second request for processing by a second service;
determining, based on a set of criteria associated with the second request, whether the process pool includes a utility process with which to hose the second service; and
based on determining the process pool includes a utility process with which to host the second service, configuring the utility process of the process pool to host the second service (…Portion resource allocation requests 132 may specify performance characteristics or other requirements, which resource manager 130 may analyze, evaluate, or otherwise compare with the computing resources of pool(s) 140 to make an allocation that satisfies (or comes closest to satisfying) the requirements for the portion…, lines 18-24 column 4).
As to claims 17-20, note the discussions of claims 4-7 above, respectively.
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.
7. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamboj in view of Ashminov U.S Patent No. 10,181,045.
As to claim 13, Kamboj does not teach the set of criteria associated with the second website indicates a higher security level than the set of criteria associated with the first website.
Ashminov teaches a security level of a website to which a web content is posted (line 64 column 17 to line 25 column 18). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kamboj reference to include the teachings of Ashminov reference because by associating a security level to a website, the system could protect the web content posted on the website, as disclosed by Ashminov.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S Patent No. 11,811,885 discloses dynamically scale and orchestrate services over a network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andy Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-3762. A voice mail service is also available for this number. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:30 am – 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Kevin Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2100.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or fax to:
AFTER-FINAL faxes must be signed and sent to (571) 273 - 8300.
OFFICAL faxes must be signed and sent to (571) 273 - 8300.
NON OFFICAL faxes should not be signed, please send to (571) 273 – 3762
/Andy Ho/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2194