DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to claims filed 19 July 2023.
Claims 1-20 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 Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities (line numbers correspond to claim 1): In line 5, “one or more computing device” should read “one or more computing devices”. Appropriate correction is required
Claims 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities (line numbers correspond to claim 17): In line 1, “One or more computer-readable storage media” should read “One or more computer storage media.” Appropriate 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, in step 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites a method that distributes resources to client devices according to an adjusted resource distribution constraint. A method is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In step 2A, prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for recitation of generic computer components:
i. “determining…that there is not a sufficient amount of historical distribution data for resources of the first type having the first subset of feature categories to generate the requested distribution constraint” (a person can mentally determine that there is not a sufficient amount of data by simply evaluating the amount of historical distribution data and making a judgement as to whether there is a sufficient amount (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
ii. “determining…that a second type of resource (i) shares a first feature category among the first subset of feature categories with the given resource, (ii) has a second feature category that is not among the first subset of feature categories, and (iii) has a sufficient amount of historical distribution data to generate an distribution constraint for the second type of resource” (a person can mentally determine shared feature categories, whether a feature category is among a subset of feature categories, and whether there is a sufficient amount of data, by simply evaluating feature category subsets, and distribution data, and making a judgement of whether feature categories are included in subsets and whether there is a sufficient amount of data (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
iii. “determining…a baseline resource distribution constraint using the historical distribution data for the second type of resource based on the second type of resource sharing the first feature category with the given resource” (a person can mentally determine a baseline distribution constraint, by simply evaluating distribution data, and making a judgement of a baseline constraint (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
iv. “adjusting…the baseline resource distribution constraint based at least on (i) one or more differences between the second type of resource and the first type of resource, and (ii) predicted scope of distribution of the given resource to an adjusted resource distribution constraint” (a person can mentally adjust a baseline distribution constraint, by simply evaluating differences between types of resources, and a scope of distribution, and making a judgement of an adjustment to the baseline constraint (MPEP 2106.04(a)))
v. “distributing…the given resource to multiple different client devices according to the adjusted resource distribution constraint” (a person can mentally distribute resources to clients by simply evaluating resources, clients, and a distribution constraint, and making a judgement of a plan on how to distribute those resources (MPEP 2106.04(a)))
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
In step 2A, prong 2 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
vi. “receiving…a request for a resource distribution constraint that conditions distribution of a given resource of a first type having a first subset of feature categories among a set of feature categories” (insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
vii. “by the one or more computing devices” (adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
Since the claim does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is “directed” to an abstract idea.
In step 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined through reanalysis of the following limitations considered in step 2A prong 2, that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
vi. “receiving…a request for a resource distribution constraint that conditions distribution of a given resource of a first type having a first subset of feature categories among a set of feature categories” (well understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))).
vii. “by the one or more computing devices” (adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the additional element “the adjusted resource distribution constraint specifies a guaranteed minimum output to a provider of the given resource irrespective of an actual scope of distribution of the given resource” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 3, the additional element “the adjusted resource distribution constraint specifies a maximum output to the provider of the given resource irrespective of the actual scope of distribution of the given resource beyond a maximum specified scope of distribution” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Further, the additional element “determining that the actual scope of distribution has reached the maximum specified scope of distribution” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally determine that a scope has reached a maximum by simply evaluating a scope and making a judgement that it has reached a threshold maximum (MPEP 2106.04(a))). Further the additional element “providing the maximum output based on the determination that the actual scope of distribution has reached the maximum specified scope of distribution” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data output (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (ell-understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 4, the additional element “the adjusted resource distribution constraint specifies a variable output to the provider of the given resource based on the actual scope of distribution being between a minimum specified distribution level and a maximum specified distribution level” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Further, the additional element “determining, at a specified time, that the actual scope of distribution is between the minimum specified distribution level and the maximum specified distribution level” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally determine that a scope is between a minimum and maximum by simply evaluating a scope and making a judgement that it within a minimum and maximum range (MPEP 2106.04(a))). Further the additional element “providing a given output to the provider based on the actual scope of distribution and a variable amount” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data output (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (ell-understood, routine and conventional activity of transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 5, the additional element “the baseline resource distribution constraint specifies a baseline unit amount” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Further, the additional element “adjusting the baseline resource distribution constraint comprises: determining the variable amount based on the baseline unit amount and one or more adjustment parameters” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally adjust a baseline constraint by simply evaluating a baseline unit amount and adjustment parameters, and making a judgement of an adjusted baseline resource distribution constraint (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
Regarding claim 6, the additional element “determining the variable amount comprises applying a linear function to the baseline unit amount” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally determine a variable amount by simply evaluating a linear function applied to a baseline unit amount, and making a judgement of a variable amount(MPEP 2106.04(a))).
Regarding claim 7, the additional element “determining the one or more adjustment parameters based on known resource distribution constraints of a set of resources of the first type and known resource distribution constraints of a set of resources of the second type” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally determine adjustment parameters by simply evaluating constraints, and making a judgement of an adjustment parameter (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
Regarding claim 8, the additional element “the baseline resource distribution constraint specifies a baseline unit amount” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Further, the additional element “determining the baseline resource distribution constraint comprises: for each of two or more feature categories in the first subset, determining a respective category-specific baseline unit amount from the historical distribution data for the second type of resource based on the second type of resource sharing the respective feature category with the given resource; and determining the baseline unit amount as a weighted average of the two or more category-specific baseline unit amounts” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can determine a baseline constraint by simply evaluating historical distribution data and baseline unit amounts and making a judgement of a baseline constraint (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
Regarding claim 9, the additional element “the given resource comprises a digital component” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 10, the additional element “each of the set of feature categories comprises a respective topic” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 11-16, they comprise limitations similar to those of claims 1-6, and are therefore rejected for similar rationale.
Regarding claims 17-20, they comprise limitations similar to those of claims 1-4, and are therefore rejected for similar rationale.
Examiner’s Note
In the closest prior art, HAMDI Pub, No.: US 2022/0107965 A1, it discusses a profiling module that compares obtained cluster asset information to each other to identify common features or characteristics of the assets, including resource usage patterns, and when there is an unidentified asset in the cluster, assigning a profile to the unidentified asset (an unidentified asset being an asset with insufficient data to identify it) based on the unidentified asset having at least one or more features or characteristics in common with identified assets in that profile. However, HAMDI does not teach distribution of resources based on adjusted resource distribution constraints determined by differences between first and second resource types having first feature categories in common with other feature categories not in common, and predicted scope of resource distribution
SAMAREH ABOLHASANI et al. Pub. No.: US 2023/0315537 A1 discloses a method performed by a cloud compute resource provider that automatically adjusts a quota of compute resources allocated to a customer subscription based at least in part on a historical usage model that is trained on a threshold quantity of data that is deemed sufficient to guarantee a confidence in predicted resource usage. However, SAMAREH ABOLHASANI does not teach distribution of resources based on adjusted resource distribution constraints determined by differences between first and second resource types having first feature categories in common with other feature categories not in common, and predicted scope of resource distribution.
CHAKRAVARTY et al. Patent No.: US 11,902,177 B1 discloses an AI based engine for resource allocation recommendation based in part on using characteristic data to compute match scores for users associated with other resource allocations having similar resource allocation patterns to generate an allocation recommendation. However, CHAKRAVARTY does not teach distribution of resources based on adjusted resource distribution constraints determined by differences between first and second resource types having first feature categories in common with other feature categories not in common, and predicted scope of resource distribution.
GAURAV et al. Pub. No.: US 2016/0378519 A1 discloses anticipating a need for additional virtualized resources by using a sufficient number of data points to estimate a projected utilization of a resource in a future time window, and eagerly provisioning new resources to meet the projection. However, GAURAV does not teach distribution of resources based on adjusted resource distribution constraints determined by differences between first and second resource types having first feature categories in common with other feature categories not in common, and predicted scope of resource distribution.
None of the prior art, alone or in combination, anticipates or renders obvious the invention set forth in the independent claims, comprising during execution of a compute task by a client device, receiving a request for a resource distribution constraint conditioning distribution of a first type of resource having first features, determining that there is insufficient historical distribution data to generate the requested constraint, determining a second type of resource that shares a feature category with the first type of resource, while having other feature categories that are not shared, and having a sufficient amount of historical distribution data to generate a distribution constraint for the second type of resource, determining a baseline resource distribution constraint based on the distribution data of the second type of resource, adjusting the baseline resource distribution constraint based on differences between the first and second types of resources, and a predicted scope of distribution to the adjusted baseline resource distribution constraint, and distributing the first type of resource to client devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W AYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6420. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/MICHAEL W AYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195