DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-18, and 20 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 6-9, and 14-17 are amended. Claims 3, 5, 11, 13, and 19 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-18, and 20 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.
Step 1: Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-8 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes. Claims 9, 10, 12, and 14-16 are directed to apparatuses and fall within the statutory category of machines. Claims 17, 18, and 20 are directed to storage media fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture.
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.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 9, and 17: The limitations of “analyzing…the first data set and the second data set in order to determine a proposed allocation of the resources and a proposed timing that corresponds to the proposed allocation,” “using the second data set to determine a current allocation of the resources,” and “generating…a projected allocation of the resources…,” 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 judge and evaluate an input using some algorithm to determine a proposed way to allocate resources to meet certain requirements. Further, the step of “provisioning…the resources to the user” would be nothing more than a mental processes of resource allocation, which could be done with a pen and paper by simply filling out a chart of which resources should be used and when.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 9, and 17 recite 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.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 9, and 17: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements – “at least one processor,” “a first data set,” “a memory,” “a first machine learning model,” “a processor,” “a memory,” “a display,” “a communications interface,” and “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions…,” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)) which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claims 1, 9, and 17 recite the following additional elements – “receiving…a first data set…” and “retrieving… a second data set…,” which are merely recitations of insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and use of a computing or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and will also be addressed below in Step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
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 claims 1, 16, and 20 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 9, and 17: 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 which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, to the extent that “receiving…a first data set…” and “retrieving… a second data set…” are positively recited steps of receiving input data, these would be insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity which is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
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.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1, 9 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 2, 4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non-statutory for at least the reasons stated above. The claims are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the non-statutory deficiencies of Claim 1. Instead, they just ask further clarifications on the elements of claim 1 (such as claim 2), further insignificant post-solution activity (such as claim 4). Claims 2, 4, and 6-8 do not add any steps or elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 10, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non-statutory for at least the reasons stated above. The claims are dependent on claim 9, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the non-statutory deficiencies of claim 9, citing only similar clarifications to those dependent claims rejected above in regards to claim 1. Thus, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non-statutory for at least the reasons stated above. The claims are dependent on claim 17, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the non-statutory deficiencies of claim 17, citing only similar clarifications to those dependent claims rejected above in regards to claim 1. Thus, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-18, and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/016/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to prior art rejections, applicant argues the following in the remarks:
a. On page 9, applicant argues that the amended independent claims are integrated into a practical application, citing paragraphs [0003], [0004], and [0072] of the instant specification and comparing the instant case to the Ex Parte Desjardins et al decision.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant:
a. The examiner would begin by pointing out that proper consideration of the Desjardins decision requires the examiner to consult the specification and determine that the disclosed invention improves technology or a technical field, and further to evaluate the claim to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology.
In this case, applicant does not successfully argue either element pointed out above. Applicant’s citation of Paragraph [0004] of the instant specification does state that “there is a need for… automated performance of capacity allocation, brokerage, placement, and provisioning of compute, network, and storage resources” so that things can be done in an efficient manner, but none of the cited portions of the specification make any claim that this invention fills that need. Certainly, since applicant has not even successfully argued that the specification claims an improvement, there is no evidence that these specific claims encompass any improvement.
The examiner would further point out that the claims at issue in Desjardins taught specific algorithms and steps that could lead to the claimed improvement. In the instant specification, instead, only generic steps are taught. “A first machine learning model,” “a proposed allocation of resources,’ “trained by using historical data that relates to the resources.” Any machine learning model can be used as long as it is trained by data “relating” somehow to the resources in order to produce any proposed allocation and timing. There are literally no specifics applied at all. How can we possibly assert that the allocation will increase efficiency when there are no limits placed on the allocation?
Thus, the rejection stands.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Gregory Kessler whose telephone number is (571)270-7762. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 - 5, Alternate Fridays 8:30-4.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at (571)272-3338. 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.
/GREGORY A KESSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197