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
Status of the Application
The following is a non-Final Office Action.
In response to Examiner's communication of 9/10/2025, Applicant responded on 12/10/2025. Amended claims 1, 9, 16.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 9, 16 are not sufficient to overcome the35 USC 101 set forth in the previous action.
Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 9, 16 are sufficient to overcome the prior art rejections set forth in the previous action.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits, “...Support for this amendment is found in the original disclosure in at least the Specification, at [00102]-[00103], and other portions of the Specification that disclose a trust factor:
[00102] Operation 606 depicts analyzing a state of the computing resources to determine a trust factor that is associated with the user account. A customer can purchase a subscription for more resources than it needs, so does not utilize all of the subscribed resources. This can put systems at risk by being unclaimed due to security risks, while also increasing electrical power utilization to keep these unclaimed systems powered on. [00103] This trust factor can be similar to the trust confidence factor of operation 424 of FIG. 4. Assignee's representative submits that the subject matter of claim 1, as amended, constitutes patent-eligible subject matter for at least the reason that it satisfies the Office's Step 2A, Prong Two…The amended subject matter of claim 1 is eligible because it reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field, integrating a recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Here, the functioning of the computer / technical field is electrical power consumption by computers in a hybrid cloud environment, as captured in the claim and described in the Specification, e.g. [0024] The present techniques can be implemented to facilitate an
incentive-based subscription to reduce energy consumption, to a benefit of both service providers and consumers. The present techniques can be implemented to facilitate a trust classifier can be implemented to analyze a service consumption history data model and cloud resources to be utilized by a trustworthy consumer to classify a consumer's trustworthiness. The present techniques can also be implemented to facilitate a power efficiency data configuration model based on tenant usage statistics to benefit service provider energy consumption. [0029] A consumer can generally subscribe to resources provided by, and managed by, hybrid cloud management system 102. In some examples, there is a set cost for this subscription that does not vary based on how much of the subscribed resources the consumer utilizes. In implementing the present techniques, incentive based cloud resource provisioning
component 108 can identify resources that can be transitioned to a low power state (or otherwise have an ongoing cost of operating the resources reduced), and provide an incentive to the consumer to do so. In some examples, this incentive can be a reduction in a cost of the subscription…the Kim Memo also states, "An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology or a technical field is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome." That consideration is true with respect to the amended subject matter of claim 1. Rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, the amended subject matter of claim 1 does covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way, as in: analyzing a state of the computing resources to determine a trust factor that is associated with the user account, wherein the trust factor indicates a trustworthiness of the user account with respect to consuming computing resources, wherein the user account has paid a subscription for access to a total amount of computing resources that comprise the computing resources,
wherein the trust factor is based on a utilized amount of the total amount of computing resources that the user account utilizes, and wherein the trust factor is based on an amount of electrical power consumed with respect to providing the unclaimed computing resource of the total amount of computing resources that the user account does not utilize For at least these reasons, assignee's representative submits that amended claim 1 recites eligible subject matter, as do dependent claims 2-8. Assignee's representative amends independent claims 9 and 16 in a similar manner as independent claim 1. For reasons similar to those stated regarding claim 1, assignee's representative submits that amended claims 9 and 16 recite eligible subject matter, as do respective dependent claims 10-15 and 17-20.….”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While Applicant’s amendments further prosecution, the claims and the argued elements, are directed to, …to facilitate an incentive-based subscription to reduce energy consumption, to a benefit of both service providers and consumers.…determine a trust factor that is associated with the user account… customer can purchase a subscription…to analyze a service consumption history data model and cloud resources to be utilized by a trustworthy consumer to classify a consumer's trustworthiness… this incentive can be a reduction in a cost of the subscription…., which is a contractual business problem directed to organizing human activity (i.e. humans to remotely manage resources and human managing contractual relationships) and a mental process (i.e. humans observing equipment usage from reading usage reports, human evaluating human trust factor based on equipment usage from usage reports, human offering incentives to other humans to lower usage based on equipment usage report), as established in Step 2A Prong 1. Thus, the claims do not recite a technical improvement to a technical problem or necessarily roots in computing technologies. Additionally, pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, as an ordered combination, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea, and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Further, these additional elements generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment, namely the environment of a computer and computing resource management, performing extra solution activities. Therefore, as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application in Step 2A Prong 2.
The limitations are abstract elements that are part of and directed to the recited abstract idea as described above with respect to the first prong of Step 2A, i.e. mental process and organizing human activities, generally linked to a technical environment, i.e. computer. Even novel and newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. July 2015 Update, p. 3; see SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, slip op. at 2 (Fed Cir. May 15, 2018).
Simply reciting specific limitations that narrow the abstract idea does not make an abstract idea non-abstract. 79 Fed. Reg. 74631; buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (2014); see SAP America at p. 12. As discussed in SAP America, no matter how much of an advance the claims recite, when “the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm,” “[a]n advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.” Id. at p. 3.
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). MPEP 2106.05(f).
Response to Arguments – Prior Art
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections have been fully considered.
The closest prior art are US Patent Publication to US20210144517A1 to Bernat et al., (hereinafter referred to as “Bernat”) in view of US Patent Publication to US20220396171A1 to Ozawa et al., (hereinafter referred to as “Ozawa”).
However, the teachings of the references do not teach the specific ordered sequence of limitations of independent claims 1, 9, 16.
The prior art rejection is hereby withdrawn.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 (similarly 9) recite, “
identifying an unclaimed computing resource of computing resources installed for a user account on premises at a physical location associated with the user account, wherein the … is configured to remotely manage the computing resources;
analyzing a state of the computing resources to determine a trust factor that is associated with the user account, wherein the trust factor indicates a trustworthiness of the user account with respect to consuming computing resources, wherein the user account has paid a subscription for access to a total amount of computing resources that comprise the computing resources, wherein the trust factor is based on a utilized amount of the total amount of computing resources that the user account utilizes, and wherein the trust factor is based on an amount of electrical power consumed with respect to providing the unclaimed computing resource of the total amount of computing resources that the user account does not utilize; and
setting, via a …, a power configuration of the unclaimed computing resource to a lower power consumption state relative to a current power consumption state based on the trust factor and a resource consumption history of the computing resources that is associated with the user account.“
Claim 16 recite:
identifying an unclaimed computing resource of computing resources installed on premises at a physical location associated with an account;
analyzing a state of the computing resources to determine a trust value that is associated with the account, wherein the trust value indicates a trustworthiness of user account with respect to consuming computing resources, wherein the user account has paid a subscription for access to a total amount of computing resources that comprise the computing resources, and wherein the trust factor is based on a utilized amount of the total amount of computing resources that the user account utilizes; and
setting, via a …, a power configuration of the unclaimed computing resource from a first power consumption state to a second power consumption state lower than the first power consumption state based on the trust value and a resource consumption history of the computing resources that is associated with the account.
Analyzing under Step 2A, Prong 1:
The limitations regarding, …identifying an unclaimed computing resource of computing resources installed for a user account on premises at a physical location associated with the user account, wherein the … is configured to remotely manage the computing resources; analyzing a state of the computing resources to determine a trust factor that is associated with the user account, wherein the trust factor indicates a trustworthiness of the user account with respect to consuming computing resources, wherein the user account has paid a subscription for access to a total amount of computing resources that comprise the computing resources, wherein the trust factor is based on a utilized amount of the total amount of computing resources that the user account utilizes, and wherein the trust factor is based on an amount of electrical power consumed with respect to providing the unclaimed computing resource of the total amount of computing resources that the user account does not utilize; and setting, via a …, a power configuration of the unclaimed computing resource to a lower power consumption state relative to a current power consumption state based on the trust factor and a resource consumption history of the computing resources that is associated with the user account..…, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, can include a human using their mind and using pen and paper to perform the identified limitations; therefore, the claims are directed to a mental process.
Further, …identifying an unclaimed computing resource of computing resources installed for a user account on premises at a physical location associated with the user account, wherein the … is configured to remotely manage the computing resources; analyzing a state of the computing resources to determine a trust factor that is associated with the user account, wherein the trust factor indicates a trustworthiness of the user account with respect to consuming computing resources, wherein the user account has paid a subscription for access to a total amount of computing resources that comprise the computing resources, wherein the trust factor is based on a utilized amount of the total amount of computing resources that the user account utilizes, and wherein the trust factor is based on an amount of electrical power consumed with respect to providing the unclaimed computing resource of the total amount of computing resources that the user account does not utilize; and setting, via a …, a power configuration of the unclaimed computing resource to a lower power consumption state relative to a current power consumption state based on the trust factor and a resource consumption history of the computing resources that is associated with the user account…, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are instructions for humans to remotely manage resources and human managing contractual relationships, therefore it is, commercial interactions and managing interactions between people. Thus, the claims are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to a mental process, certain methods of organizing human activity, and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
Analyzing under Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A.
In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea identified under Step 2A, Prong 1, such as:
Claim 1, 9, 16: A system, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, comprising instructions that, in response to execution by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations, A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, in response to execution, cause a system comprising at least one processor to perform operations, system is configured to remotely manage, communications network
, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, as an ordered combination, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea, and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components.
Further, these additional elements generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment, namely the environment of a computer.
Additionally, with respect to, “identifying…”, “communicating…”, “setting…”, “initiating…”, these elements do not add a meaningful limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are extra-solution activity, pre and post solution activity - i.e. data gathering – “identifying…”, “verifying...”, data output – “communicating…”, “setting…”, “initiating…”
Analyzing under Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because, as an order combination, the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it).
Additionally, as an order combination, the additional elements append the recited abstract idea to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field as individually evinced by the applicant’s own disclosure, as required by the Berkheimer Memo, in at least:
[00180]For example, parts of computing environment 1400 can be used to implement one or more embodiments of hybrid cloud management system 102, and/or on-premises computers 106 of FIG. 1, and/or cloud management 304 and/or resources 310 of FIG. 3.
[00182]While the embodiments have been described above in the general context of computer-executable instructions that can run on one or more computers, those skilled in the art will recognize that the embodiments can be also implemented in combination with other program modules and/or as a combination of hardware and software.
[00189]With reference again to FIG. 14, the example environment 1400 for implementing various embodiments described herein includes a computer 1402, the computer 1402 including a processing unit 1404, a system memory 1406 and a system bus 1408. The system bus 1408 couples system components including, but not limited to, the system memory 1406 to the processing unit 1404. The processing unit 1404 can be any of various commercially available processors. Dual microprocessors and other multi-processor architectures can also be employed as the processing unit 1404.
[00208]Further, the various embodiments can be implemented as a method, apparatus, or article of manufacture using standard programming and/or engineering techniques to produce software, firmware, hardware, or any combination thereof to control a computer to implement one or more embodiments of the disclosed subject matter. An article of manufacture can encompass a computer program accessible from any computer-readable device or computer-readable storage/communications media. For example, computer readable storage media can include but are not limited to magnetic storage devices (e.g., hard disk, floppy disk, magnetic strips…), optical discs (e.g., CD, DVD…), smart cards, and flash memory devices (e.g., card, stick, key drive…). Of course, those skilled in the art will recognize many modifications can be made to this configuration without departing from the scope or spirit of the various embodiments.
[00210]What has been described above includes examples of the present specification. It is, of course, not possible to describe every conceivable combination of components or methods for purposes of describing the present specification, but one of ordinary skill in the art may recognize that many further combinations and permutations of the present specification are possible. Accordingly, the present specification is intended to embrace all such alterations, modifications and variations that fall within the spirit and scope of the appended claims.
Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Moreover, the remaining elements of dependent claims do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these remaining elements merely recite further abstract limitations that provide nothing more than simply a narrowing of the abstract idea recited in the independent claims.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components to “apply” the recited abstract idea, perform insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PO HAN MAX LEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3821. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 8:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PO HAN LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623