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
This action is responsive to application filed September 15, 2023.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were presented, and are pending examination.
Drawings
Drawings filed on 9/15/23 are acknowledged.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of an “abstract idea”, as outlined in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claims are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
According to Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility guidance/analysis, the instant claims recite a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04 The claimed invention in general (with Claim 1 as a representative example) is deemed abstract because it generally relates to accessing a service (see the instant specification: at least Abstract, Background and Summary). Claim 1, as the representative example, comprises functional limitations which are deemed to be abstract because they are recited with a high level of generality, and do not go beyond a broad type of access, where:
The first two functional limitations recite “identifying a [first/second] vPLC-specific endpoint for a service…”. At its face-value and based on broadest reasonable interpretation according to the specification, this is a mere observation of data. This is a type of data analysis since something that has an FQDN and IP address is being identified. The limitations are mental processes, since a person such as a general user or administrator can perform these observations in their mind using their own abilities. Accordingly, the limitations are abstract since they encompass a mental process;
The second two functional limitations recite “accessing the service… to perform a function”. This is a basic type of behavior management. In this case, a general user or administrator can perform a variety of generic actions. Accessing a service can be accomplished simply by a user turning on a computer or a user clicking a link to a website. Accordingly, the limitations are abstract since they encompass organizing human activity.
It has been shown that the claim recites an abstract idea which is a judicial exception. According to Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application that would make it patent eligible. The recitation of additional claim elements such as “endpoint”, “CSP-provided infrastructure” and “cloud services”, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These elements are ancillary and inconsequential to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. “Official Notice” is taken that the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere generic components that apply the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05 (a) through (h).
Finally, according to Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, where the claims are taken as a whole, the additional elements are seen as extra-solution activity that do not add an inventive concept to the claims, and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Essentially, the claim limitations are neither a technical improvement of a computer or network itself, nor are they a transformative technological process of a computer, network, or other element, nor are they a special use machine, and are thus seen to fall within the “Mental Process” and/or “Organizing Human Activity” categories of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 13,17 are slight variations of claim 1 and thus rejected based upon the same rationale given above for claim 1.
Dependent claims are rejected based upon the same rationale given for the base claims which they depend from. Furthermore, the dependent claims fail to include additional elements that would be deemed sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “vPLC”, “CSP” and also “IP” are acronyms which were not expanded to establish their proper name.
Claim 5 recites in line 3 “FQDN are same IP address”, but appears to be missing “the” in the middle of the quoted text.
Independent claims 13,17 inherit the same informalities as claim 1 and are objected to.
Dependent claims inherit the informalities of the independent claims and are objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-5,8-10,13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Boshev et al (US Publication 20220377135).
In reference to claim 1, Boshev a method, comprising:
identifying a first vPLC-specific endpoint for a service running on a first portion of a CSP-provided infrastructure in a region, the service being one of CSP-offered cloud services, the first vPLC-specific endpoint being associated with a first fully qualified domain name (FQDN), which is associated with a first IP address; (see at least ¶s 38,39, where Boshev teaches identifying a first instance of a cloud application/endpoint that provides a service, and which runs on a first availability zone (portion of a cloud infrastructure), and that provides a cloud service via a cloud platform, and also see at least ¶ 28 lines 1-10, ¶ 67 & ¶ 68 line 1-8, where Boshev teaches the cloud application/endpoint is associated with a URL (which inherently includes a FQDN) and which is associated with an IP address)
identifying a second vPLC-specific endpoint for the service running on a second portion of the CSP-provided infrastructure, the second vPLC-specific endpoint being associated with a second FQDN, which is associated with a second IP address; (see at least ¶s 27,28,38 (& additionally the above citations), where Boshev teaches that the cloud platform provides multiple instances of a cloud application that provides the service, and that the multiple instances are associated with the URL/FQDN and are associated with the IP address (furthermore, dependent claim 5 says that the first and second IP addresses are the same, and by extension, the first and second URLs are the same)
accessing the service by the first vPLC-specific endpoint to perform a first function; and accessing the service by the second vPLC-specific endpoint to perform a second function (see ¶ 35 lines 10-20 and ¶ 67 lines 1-2, where Boshev teaches a user accessing the cloud applications to execute application related functions).
In reference to claim 2, this is taught by Boshev, see at least ¶s 65,66,89, which teaches concurrent access to the first and second cloud application endpoints.
In reference to claim 3, this is taught by Boshev, see at least ¶s 38,80, which teaches multiple (including third) instances of the cloud application on multiple zones/portions of the cloud infrastructure.
In reference to claim 4, this is taught by Boshev, see at least ¶s 67,69, which teaches existing URL and IP address for the cloud application.
In reference to claim 5, this is taught by Boshev, see at least ¶s 28,67,69, which teaches that the first and second IP address could be the same one IP address.
In reference to claim 8, this is taught by Boshev, see at least ¶s 28,38,39,68, where Boshev teaches accessing the first and second cloud applications runs on first and second availability zones, where the applications are mapped to the URL.
In reference to claim 9, this is taught by Boshev, see at least ¶s 28,38,39,68, where Boshev teaches accessing the first and second cloud applications runs on first and second availability zones, where the applications are mapped to the URL.
In reference to claim 10, this is taught by Boshev, see at least ¶s 38,39, where Boshev teaches identifying a first instance of a cloud application/endpoint that provides a service, and which runs on a first availability zone (portion of a cloud infrastructure), and that provides a cloud service via a cloud platform, and also see at least ¶ 28 lines 1-10, ¶ 67 & ¶ 68 line 1-8, where Boshev teaches the cloud application/endpoint is associated with a URL.
Claims 13-15, are slight variations of the rejected claims 1-5,8-10 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6,7,11,12,16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boshev et al (US Publication 20220377135) in view of Zhang et al (US Publication 20140173683).
In reference to claim 6, Boshev fails to explicitly teach wherein the first FQDN is created based at least in part on the existing FQDN. However, Zhang teaches deploying applications in a cloud service, and creating application URL/FQDN based on an initial domain name (see Zhang, at least Abstract & ¶s 59-63). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Boshev based on the teachings of Zhang for the purpose of facilitating common application access for users.
In reference to claim 7, Boshev teaches multiple instances of a cloud application (see above citations). Zhang teaches creating application URL/FQDN based on an initial domain name (see Zhang, at least Abstract & ¶s 59-63). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Boshev in view of the teachings of Zhang based on the rationale given for claim 1 above.
In reference to claim 11, Boshev teaches multiple instances of a cloud application (see above citations). Zhang teaches creating application URL/FQDN based on an initial domain name (see Zhang, at least Abstract & ¶s 59-63). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Boshev in view of the teachings of Zhang based on the rationale given for claim 1 above.
In reference to claim 12, this is taught by Boshev, see at least ¶s 28,38,39,68, where Boshev teaches accessing the first and second cloud applications runs on first and second availability zones, where the applications are mapped to the URL.
Claims 16-20 are slight variations of the rejected claims 1-12 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
April 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights