DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-30 are presented for examination.
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. 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 1-10 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines. Claims 11-20 are directed to computer-readable media and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Claims 21-30 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes.
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, 11, and 21: The limitations of “determining a plurality of scheduled events…,” “determine a number of buckets…,” and “schedule each of the plurality of scheduled events…,” as drafted, are a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with a pen and paper. For example, a person can determine events that require scheduling, the amount of resources that will be required to schedule that particular set of events, and match the events and resources into a schedule with the use of a pen and paper. Further, the step of “generate a plurality of buckets…” is nothing more than a step of using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)).
Therefore, Yes, claim 1 recites judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 11, and 21: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements – “system,” “a memory…,” “a processor,” “an ILP solver,” “a non-transitory computer readable storage media comprising computer-readable instructions…,” and “a processor of a control plane,” 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.
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 claims are 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, 11, and 21 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 11, and 21: 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.
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, 11, and 21 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non-statutory for at least the reasons stated above. The claims are dependent on the above independent claims, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the non-statutory deficiencies of the claim on which each depends. Each claim simply adds either a clarification of the nature of the elements claimed in the independent claim or similar mental processing steps to add for the practitioner. Claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30 do not add any steps or elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert claims 1, 11, or 21 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 1-30 are therefore not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sawhney et al (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0121239 A1, hereinafter Sawhney).
As per claim 1, Sawhney teaches the limitations as claimed, including a system, the system comprising:
a memory having computer-readable instructions stored thereon (Figure 4, Element 406); and
a processor (Figure 4, Element 404) that executes the computer-readable instructions to:
determine a plurality of scheduled events to be executed in a time period (Paragraph [0027]);
determine a number of buckets in the time period based on a predetermined permissible interval (Paragraph [0033]);
generate a plurality of buckets equal to the number of buckets in the time period, wherein each of the plurality of buckets is associated with a time interval (Paragraph [0033]); and
schedule each of the plurality of scheduled events in one of the plurality of buckets (Figure 2, Elements 212 and 214), wherein execution of each of the plurality of scheduled events is delayed or advanced from an original scheduled time based on the predetermined permissible interval (Paragraphs [0042] and [0043]).
As per claim 2, Sawhney teaches computer-readable instructions to map the time interval associated with each respective bucket of the plurality of buckets to a memory address containing metadata of the plurality of scheduled events to be executed in that respective bucket (Paragraphs [0023] and [0024]).
As per claim 3, Sawhney teaches computer-readable instructions to schedule the plurality of buckets at regular intervals in the time period (Paragraph [0042]).
As per claim 4, Sawhney teaches computer-readable instructions to divide the time period by the permissible interval (Paragraph [0033]).
As per claim 5, Sawhney teaches executes computer-readable instructions to, for each scheduled event determine a delay time interval to a nearest delay bucket, apply a delay weight to the delay time interval, determine an advance time interval to a nearest advance bucket, apply an advance weight to the advance time interval, compare the weighted delay time interval to the weighted advance time interval, and based on the comparison, determine whether the event is to be delayed by the delay time interval or advanced by the advance time interval (Paragraphs [0042] and [0043]).
As per claim 6, Sawhney teaches computer-readable instructions to determine that a number of scheduled events in a particular bucket exceeds an upper events number threshold, and in response to the number of scheduled events in the particular bucket exceeding the upper events number threshold, generate additional buckets adjacent the particular bucket (Paragraph [0033]).
As per claim 8, Sawhney teaches computer-readable instructions to determine that a number of scheduled events in a particular bucket is below a lower events number threshold, in response to the number of scheduled events in the particular bucket being below the lower events number threshold, schedule the events in the particular bucket to a second bucket, and delete the particular bucket (Paragraph [0033]).
As per claim 9, Sawhney teaches that each of the plurality of scheduled events is associated with a tenant in a multi-tenant pooled database (Paragraph [0041]).
As per claim 10, Sawhney teaches computer-readable instructions to determine the predetermined permissible interval based on a predetermined permissible delay interval and a predetermined permissible advance interval (Paragraphs [0042] and [0043]).
As per claims 11-16 and 18-20, they are medium claims with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As per claims 21-26 and 28-30, they are method claims with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
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