DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendments/arguments filed on 7/20/2026.
Claims 11 and 16 are amended.
Claims 17 – 20 are cancelled.
Claims 21 – 24 are added.
Claims 1 – 16 and 21 – 24 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 .
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea of mental process without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “determining, for each of the plurality of logical partitions, tentative new weights based on the configuration and performance parameters for each of a plurality of logical partitions;”, “iteratively adjusting the tentative new weights of the plurality of logical partitions by a set weight increase and subtracting the set weight increase from a weight points left variable until the weight points left variable reaches a threshold;” and “assigning final new weights to the plurality of the logical partitions in response to the iterative adjustment.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. For instance, a person can mentally, through observation, determine weights if the plurality of logical partitions based on configuration and performance parameters, and iteratively adjust the weights according to a criteria to determine a final new weights. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element “obtaining configuration and performance parameters for each of a plurality of logical partitions;” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering and transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “obtaining configuration and performance parameters for each of a plurality of logical partitions;”, the courts have identified mere data transmission is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The generic recitation of use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and mere data transmission do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “wherein the configuration and performance parameters for each of a plurality of logical partitions comprise observations of at least one of logical core weights, logical core counts, or core utilizations for each logical core of a given type” merely claims gathering of data which the courts have identified mere data transmission is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Regarding claim 3, The additional element “determining a sum of logical partition weights for the plurality of logical partitions based on the configuration and performance parameters for each of a plurality of logical partitions and saving the sum of logical partition weights to the weight points left variable” merely claims a mental activity that can be accomplished by a user with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element failed to meet prong 1 of the analysis.
Regarding claim 4, The additional element “obtaining system configuration parameters determining, for each of the plurality of logical partitions, a logical partition entitlement based on the logical partition weights and the system configuration parameters” merely claims a mental activity that can be accomplished by a user with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element failed to meet prone 1 of the analysis.
Regarding claim 5, The additional element “wherein the logical partition entitlement for each of the plurality of logical partitions logical partitions is represented by E = 100 * N * W / WS, where N is the number of physical cores of the type, W is a logical partition’s weight, and WS is a Weight Sum of all the logical partitions” merely recites the mathematical formula used to calculate the “logical partition entitlement” determined in claim 4, thus is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process.
Regarding claim 6, The additional element “obtaining utilization performance parameters for each of the plurality of logical partitions to form a utilization ceiling projection for each of the plurality of logical partitions based on a normal distribution function of the utilization performance parameters” merely claims a mental activity that can be accomplished by a user with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element failed to meet prong 1 of the analysis.
Regarding claim 7, The additional element “obtaining utilization performance parameters for each logical partition to form the utilization ceiling projection further comprises calculating a mean M of the utilization performance parameters and calculating the mean of the squares M2 of the utilization performance parameters” merely recites the “utilization performance parameter” and “utilization ceiling projection” calculated in claim 6, thus is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process.
providing the workload allocation recommendation to the workload initiator as a response to the API call.
Regarding claim 8, The additional element “calculating a variance V equal to the mean of the squares M2 of the utilization performance parameters less the square of means M, the variance V is represented by V = M2 - (M*M)” merely claims a mental activity that can be accomplished by a user with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element failed to meet prone 1 of the analysis.
Regarding claim 9, The additional element “calculating a standard deviation S represented by S = sqrt(V), where sqrt() is the square-root function, and calculating the utilization ceiling projection P represented by P = M + 2.06 * S.” merely claims a mental activity that can be accomplished by a user with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element failed to meet prone 1 of the analysis.
Regarding claim 10, The additional element “identifying a candidate of the plurality of logical partitions to receive the set weight increase based on a utilization ceiling projection and a logical partition entitlement for each of the plurality of logical partitions” merely claims a mental activity that can be accomplished by a user with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element failed to meet prone 1 of the analysis.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations “determining, for each of the plurality of logical partitions, tentative new weights based on the configuration and performance parameters for each of a plurality of logical partitions;”, “iteratively adjusting the tentative new weights of the plurality of logical partitions by a set weight increase and subtracting the set weight increase from a weight points left variable until the weight points left variable reaches a threshold;” and “assigning final new weights to the plurality of the logical partitions in response to the iterative adjustment.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. For instance, a person can mentally, through observation, determine weights if the plurality of logical partitions based on configuration and performance parameters, and iteratively adjust the weights according to a criteria to determine a final new weights. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “wherein the iterative adjustment redistributes available processing capacity among the plurality of logical partitions” and “wherein the final new wights modify respective processing-capacity entitlements of the plurality of logical partitions in the multiple processor computer system” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional element “obtaining configuration and performance parameters for each of a plurality of logical partitions, the configuration and performance parameters representing operating characteristics of the plurality of logical partitions;” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering and transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “A system, comprising: a processor; and a memory, wherein the memory includes a computer program product configured to perform operations for automatically tuning logical partition weights for logical partitions of a multiple processor computer system” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. And the additional elements of “obtaining configuration and performance parameters for each of a plurality of logical partitions;”, the courts have identified mere data transmission is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The generic recitation of use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and mere data transmission do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “wherein the configuration and performance parameters for each of a plurality of logical partitions comprise observations of at least one of logical core weights, logical core counts, or core utilizations for each logical core of a given type” merely claims gathering of data which the courts have identified mere data transmission is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Regarding claim 13, The additional element “determining a sum of logical partition weights for the plurality of logical partitions based on the configuration and performance parameters for each of a plurality of logical partitions and saving the sum of logical partition weights to the weight points left variable” merely claims a mental activity that can be accomplished by a user with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element failed to meet prong 1 of the analysis.
Regarding claim 14, The additional element “obtaining system configuration parameters determining, for each of the plurality of logical partitions, a logical partition entitlement based on the logical partition weights and the system configuration parameters” merely claims a mental activity that can be accomplished by a user with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element failed to meet prone 1 of the analysis.
Regarding claim 15, The additional element “obtaining utilization performance parameters for each of the plurality of logical partitions to form a utilization ceiling projection for each of the plurality of logical partitions based on a normal distribution function of the utilization performance parameters” merely claims a mental activity that can be accomplished by a user with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element failed to meet prong 1 of the analysis.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations “determining, for each of the plurality of logical partitions, tentative new weights based on the configuration and performance parameters for each of a plurality of logical partitions; including initializing the tentative new weights based on respective allowed weights of the plurality of logical partitions”, “iteratively adjusting the tentative new weights of the plurality of logical partitions by a set weight increase and subtracting the set weight increase from a weight points left variable until the weight points left variable reaches a threshold, including selecting, for an iterative adjustment, a logical partition to receive the set weight increase based on a relationship between a tentative new entitlement and a utilization ceiling projection of the logical partition, the tentative new weight being below a maximum weight and the tentative new entitlement being below an entitlement cap;” and “assigning final new weights to the plurality of the logical partitions in response to the iterative adjustment, the final new weights being provided in proportion to utilization ceiling projections of the plurality of logical partitions and corresponding to entitlements within entitlement limits of the plurality of logical partitions.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. For instance, a person can mentally, through observation, determine weights if the plurality of logical partitions based on configuration and performance parameters, and iteratively adjust the weights according to a criteria to determine a final new weights. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element “A computer program product for automatically tuning logical partition weights for logical partitions of a multiple processor computer system, the computer program product comprising: a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code embodied therewith, the computer-readable program code executable by one or more computer processors to perform an operation comprising” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional element “obtaining configuration and performance parameters for each of a plurality of logical partitions;” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering and transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “A computer program product for automatically tuning logical partition weights for logical partitions of a multiple processor computer system, the computer program product comprising: a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code embodied therewith, the computer-readable program code executable by one or more computer processors to perform an operation comprising” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. And the additional elements of “obtaining configuration and performance parameters for each of a plurality of logical partitions;”, the courts have identified mere data transmission is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The generic recitation of use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and mere data transmission do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 22, the limitation “during a subsequent weight adjustment interval, obtaining updated configuration and performance parameters for the plurality of logical partitions and repeating the determining, iteratively adjusting, and assigning using the updated configuration and performance parameters.” merely claims mental activity capable of being performed by a human being using pen and paper, and gathering of data which the courts have identified mere data transmission is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Regarding claim 23, The additional element “identifying eligible logical partitions and ineligible logical partitions based on respective logical partition types, wherein the tentative new weights and the final new weights are determined for the eligible logical partitions while weights of the ineligible logical partitions remain unchanged” merely claims a mental activity that can be accomplished by a user with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element failed to meet prong 1 of the analysis.
Regarding claim 24, The additional element “wherein iteratively adjusting the tentative new weights comprises selecting a logical partition to receive the set weight increase based on a tentative new entitlement of the logical partition being within a processing capacity usable by a logical core count of the logical partition.” merely claims a mental activity that can be accomplished by a user with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element failed to meet prong 1 of the analysis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1:
Applicant argued on pages 8 – 10 that Claim 1 is erroneously rejected under 35 USC 101 because “a person can not mentally obtain and track operating parameters for multiple active logical partitions, maintain and repeatedly update tentative machine-resource weight and a weight-points-left variable, and assign operative weights to the logical partitions”.
The examiner disagrees, as the claimed limitations merely recites a series of steps that can be accomplished by a human being using pen and paper, and the claimed obtaining part does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering and transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 11:
Applicant argued on pages 10 – 12 that Claim 11 is erroneously rejected under 35 USC 101 because of similar reasons as claim 1 counter arguments and also the newly amended limitations.
The examiner disagrees, referring to claim 1 counter arguments above, and further note that the Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “wherein the iterative adjustment redistributes available processing capacity among the plurality of logical partitions” and “wherein the final new wights modify respective processing-capacity entitlements of the plurality of logical partitions in the multiple processor computer system” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional element “obtaining configuration and performance parameters for each of a plurality of logical partitions, the configuration and performance parameters representing operating characteristics of the plurality of logical partitions;” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering and transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See 35 USC 101 rejection section above for detailed mappings.
Claim 16:
Applicant presented similar arguments as claim 11, therefore similar counter argument is also applicable.
Claims 2 – 10 and 12 – 15:
No distinct arguments are presented.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES M SWIFT whose telephone number is (571)270-7756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 7PM.
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, April Blair can be reached at 5712701014. 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.
/CHARLES M SWIFT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights