DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received January 22, 2026. No Claim(s) have been canceled. No Claims have been amended. No new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
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 €, 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1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17€ has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission has been entered.
Priority
Application No. filed 09/15/2023 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63407571 , filed 09/16/2022.
Applicant Name/Assignee: Oracle International Corporation
Inventor(s): Adogla, Eden; Kuehnel, Thomas
Examiner Note
The RCE submitted 01/22/2026 did not include any claims or remarks in the submission. An IDS was submitted. The examiner is maintaining the previous Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted 01/22/2026 has been reviewed and considered.
Claim Interpretation
With respect to the terminology “portion” of which the region of the cloud infrastructure is partitioned, the examiner is giving the term its ordinary meaning in the art, which is a software coded isolated computer processing resources, memory and/or storage allocated in the virtual cloud infrastructure (see fig. 6).
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 instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
In reference to Claims 1-9:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method, as in independent Claim 1 and the dependent claims. Such methods fall under the statutory category of "process." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Method claim 1 recites a method steps 1) provide one or more cloud services 2) creating virtual private label cloud 3) provide one or more reseller offered cloud services 4) configuring identify management for CSP 5) configuring identity management for first reseller based on CSP provided- 6) creating an identity information associated with a customer of the CSP in a first namespace, 7) creating identity information associated with first reseller in a second namespace 8) performing identify management functions of the customer of the CSP using identity information associated with the customer of the CSP 9) performing identity management functions for a user of the first reseller using identity information associated with the first reseller. The specification discloses para 0005, that the focus of the invention is to provide identify cloud services such that a reseller can provide services to customers. The specification discloses para 0009 providing virtual private label clouds created for a reseller for use to provide a reseller offer and services to customers of the reseller. This is done by providing a region, creating identity information associated with a customer in a first namespace and creating identity information associated with first reseller in a second namespace, performing functions for the customer using the identity information associated with the customer. The process claimed in light of the specification is directed toward a commercial interaction. These concepts are enumerated in Section I of the 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance published in the federal register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019) is directed toward abstract category of methods of organizing human activity.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a cloud services provider infrastructure (collection of hardware and software resources that enable cloud computing. For example servers, storage, networking equipment, and software) in a first region (geographical area) into a plurality of portions (software coded partitions- software coded isolated computer processing resource, memory and/or storage) associated with namespaces ( logical container) )
The claimed limitations do not tie any particular computer element to perform the claimed steps of the method.
The method using/applying a first portion of the cloud service provider infrastructure to provide customer services, to provides resellers services .
The steps include creating a virtual private label cloud for a first customer based on provided infrastructure comprising a second portion, however, the limitation does not point to what is performing the creating step which is so high level as to be implemented by any known means using any known technology capable of performing the operation.
The step configuring an identity management for reseller in provided infrastructure in a region and creating an identity information associated with a customer in a first namespace merely applies technology for a business process.
The step performing identity management functions do not point to any particular technology but instead focuses on the data acted upon “using first identity information associated with the customer to perform identity management functions…and using identity information associated with the first reseller”.
Accordingly, the limitations recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components for the purpose of using technology to provide services to resellers and customer. The claimed limitations apply technology in the field of use of cloud technology in order to perform identity management functions for customers and resellers allocating and providing resource and services for resellers.
The claim limitations when considered individually fail to provide any indications of patent eligible subject matter, according to MPEP guidance (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e )-(h).
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The functions are is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the method at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. This is true with respect to the limitations “partitioning cloud service infrastructure in regions into plurality of isolated portions associated with namespaces”, “ using a first portion of cloud service provider”, “creating a …virtual private label”, “using first VPLC to provide …services”, “configuring an identity management”, “creating identity information”, “performing identity management function” as the claims lack details of implementation and do not provide any technology to perform the recited functions. The claim limitations instead recite high level functions with expected outcomes. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application).
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the limitation do not as a combination provide any indications of patent eligible subject matter under step 2A prong 2 according to case law and the USPTO 101 guidance. The combination of limitations 1 and 2-4 are directed toward using a cloud service providers infrastructure to provide cloud services and creating a virtual label for a reseller which is used to provide services of the reseller to customer and thus a commercial activity and that is applied using cloud technology as an environment in which to perform the commercial activity. The combination of limitations 1-4 and 5-8 is directed toward creating identity information of customers and resellers where the identity information is for a business process. The combination of limitations 1-8 and 9-10 is directed toward performing identity functions for customers and for a user of a reseller which is a commercial interaction process. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any technical process or technological technique or technological solution to a problem rooted in technology.
Accordingly, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim provides no technical details regarding how the “partitioning”, “configuring”, “creating”, and “performing” operations are performed. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of using cloud infrastructure to provide reseller services, creating private label for resellers, using the private label to provide reseller services to customers, configuring an identity management for cloud service provider, configuring an identity management for the reseller and customer in a region and second namespace and then performing identity management functions is not a process directed toward improvement to technology or solve a problem rooted in technology or an attempt to impose meaningful limits upon the judicial exception instead is a process directed toward a business practice.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to provide cloud services and to create and perform identity management functions associated with resellers and customers and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea is a “provided infrastructure” that is stationed in regions used by a cloud service provider that is partitioned into portions where the infrastructure with high level results oriented functional language lacking any particular technical process. The claim limitations are silent with respect to any operations performed by the used “provided infrastructure”. Accordingly the claim limitations fail to provide a technical process.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the cloud service provider infrastructure at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a cloud infrastructure to provide cloud services to resellers, where the process claimed lacks technical disclosure and therefore, fails to provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea. This is true when the limitations are considered as a whole or as a combination of parts, the combination of steps is not sufficient. The claimed limitations are a combination of steps describing cloud services process in a particular technical environment without an process directed toward technology itself or a technical process that goes beyond generally applying the technology to perform the cloud services activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Absent a possible narrower construction of the steps “partitioning a cloud service provider infrastructure”, “using a first portion of cloud service provider”, “creating a …virtual private label”, “using first VPLC to provide …services”, “configuring an identity management”, “creating identity information”, “performing identity management function”... are high level operations can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. . None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Applicants do not contend they invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
With respect to the limitation “partitioning a cloud service provider infrastructure” such partitioning is well understood in the art. As evidence the examiner provides:
US Patent No. 11,689,475 B2 by Goyal “On registration and deployment, a tenancy can be created for each client/customer, which can comprise a secure and isolated partition within the cloud infrastructure in which the client can create, organize, and administer their cloud resources. …resource provisioning to users of the tenancy, wherein resources in the tenancy are provided in a plurality of compartments, wherein each compartment provides isolation of a set of resources within the compartment relative to one or more other isolated sets of resources in other compartments, wherein a request to provision a first resource in the tenancy is received from a user of the tenancy, the request comprising request characteristic data representative of a resource type of the requested first resource and a user group category assigned to the user requesting the first resource, wherein usages of the sets of resources in the tenancy spanning the plurality of compartments… wherein each compartment provides isolation of a set of the resources within the compartment relative to one or more other isolated sets of the resources in other compartments”; WO 2022/005992 A1 by Talur et al –“ the virtual private environment 402 may be logically distributed among a plurality of availability zones 406A, 406B, and 406C, each of which represents a logically isolated network environment. Each of the plurality of availability zones 406A, 406B, and 406C may further correspond to a stateful network routing service… Further, the virtual private environment 402 may provide a number of network resources across a plurality of availability zones, each of which represents an isolated set of physical devices hosting such a zone. For example, the virtual private environment 402 may include a number of network resources in a first availability zone and a number of network resources in a second availability zone. The virtual private environment 402 may further isolate network traffic within the environment 402 from traffic external to the environment 402…. which may also be referred to as availability zones or availability regions. Each zone 406 illustratively represents a computing system that is isolated from the systems of other zones “; US Pub No. 2018/0373521 By Huang et al.-abstract; FIG. 3A-C; para 0004 wherein the prior art teaches known in the art, para 0032; NPL articles “Operational strategies for isolation in cloud computing” by Nolte (2021); “Cloud-based and containerized testing environments” Revolutionizing text automation” by Palanishamy (2021); “A Review of Dynamic Resource Management in Cloud Computing Environments” by Aldossary (2020), “Recent Advances in Energy Efficient Resource Management Techniques in Cloud computing Environments” by Gholipour et al. (2021); “Microsoft publishes secure isolation guidance for Azure and Azure
Government” by Vidich (2020); A Holistic View on Resource Management in Serverless
Computing Environments: Taxonomy and Future Directions” by Mampage et al. (2021).
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environment and is silent with respect to a technical process. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-9 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. Dependent claim 2 is directed toward identity management function by an identity service stack comprising a first set of resources of the cloud services – risk mitigation. Dependent claim 3 is directed toward identity management functions for user of reseller by a first identity service stack- risk mitigation. Dependent claim 4 is directed toward identity management function for reseller by second identity service stack of second set of resources- risk mitigation. Dependent claim 5 is directed toward second identity service stack is clone of first identity service stack- applying all parameters/policy of first identity service stack to second identity service stack for access- a business process. Dependent claim 6 is directed toward creating identity information associated with first reseller performed by first identity service stack- a business process for risk mitigation and data access. Dependent claim 7 is directed toward creating identity information associated with reseller performed by second service identity stack- business process for risk mitigation and data access. Dependent claim 8 is directed toward configuring identity management for second reseller of cloud service based on CSP infrastructure and creating identity information associated with second reseller in second namespace- a business process. Dependent claim 9 is directed toward identity information associated with reseller is identity information for users of resellers and customer of resellers. The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 2-9 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter. In reference to Claims 10-16:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a non-transitory computer readable medium, as in independent Claim 10 and the dependent claims. Such mediums fall under the statutory category of "manufacture." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The instructions of Medium claim 10 corresponds to steps of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected as being directed toward an abstract idea of the categories of concepts directed toward methods of organizing human activity previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a “non-transitory computer readable memory storing instructions executed by one or more processors” cloud services provider infrastructure (collection of hardware and software resources that enable cloud computing. For example servers, storage, networking equipment, and software) in a first region (geographical area) into a plurality of portions (software coded partitions- software coded isolated computer processing resource, memory and/or storage) associated with namespaces ( logical container) )
The operations of the processor including executing instructions to use/apply a first portion of the cloud service provider infrastructure to provide customer services, to provides resellers services .
The processor applied to perform the operations “partitioning” provided cloud infrastructure in a first region into a plurality of isolated portions associated with namespaces” lacking technical disclosure” and “using the first portion…to provide services to customers”
The processor performed operations include “creating a virtual private label cloud for a first customer based on provided infrastructure comprising a second portion, however, the limitation is high level lacking technical details and can be implemented by any known means using any known technical process for a processor to perform the operation.
The processor to perform the operation “ configuring an identity management for reseller in provided infrastructure in a region and creating an identity information associated with a customer in a first namespace” merely applies technology at a high level with results oriented outcomes for a business process.
The processor performing “identity management functions” lacking technical details, instead focusing on the data acted upon “using first identity information associated with the customer to perform identity management functions…and using identity information associated with the first reseller”.
Accordingly, the limitations recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components for the purpose of using technology to provide services to resellers and customer. The claimed limitations apply technology in the field of use of cloud technology in order to perform identity management functions for customers and resellers allocating and providing resource and services for resellers. The claim limitations when considered individually fail to provide any indications of patent eligible subject matter, according to MPEP guidance (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e )-(h).
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The functions are is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the method at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. This is true with respect to the limitations “partitioning provided infrastructure in a region into a plurality of portions associated with namespaces”, “ using a first portion of cloud service provider”, “creating a …virtual private label”, “using first VPLC to provide …services”, “configuring an identity management”, “creating identity information”, “performing identity management function” as the claims lack details of implementation and do not provide any technology to perform the recited functions. The claim limitations instead recite high level functions with expected outcomes. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application).
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the limitation do not as a combination provide any indications of patent eligible subject matter under step 2A prong 2 according to case law and the USPTO 101 guidance. The combination of limitations 1 and 2-4 are directed toward using a cloud service providers infrastructure to provide cloud services and creating a virtual label for a reseller which is used to provide services of the reseller to customer and thus a commercial activity and that is applied using cloud technology as an environment in which to perform the commercial activity. The combination of limitations 1-4 and 5-8 is directed toward creating identity information of customers and resellers where the identity information is for a business process. The combination of limitations 1-8 and 9-10 is directed toward performing identity functions for customers and for a user of a reseller which is a commercial interaction process. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any technical process or technological technique or technological solution to a problem rooted in technology.
Accordingly, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. This is because the claimed subject matter fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The recited processor is merely applied to perform the operations of the identified abstract idea. The claim provides no technical details regarding how the processor executing instructions as a technical process perform “partitioning”, “configuring”, “creating”, and “performing” operations as claimed. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of using cloud infrastructure to provide reseller services, creating private label for resellers, using the private label to provide reseller services to customers, configuring an identity management for cloud service provider, configuring an identity management for the reseller and customer in a region and second namespace and then performing identity management functions is not a process directed toward improvement to technology or solve a problem rooted in technology or an attempt to impose meaningful limits upon the judicial exception instead is a process directed toward a business practice.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to provide cloud services and to create and perform identity management functions associated with resellers and customers and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea is a “provided infrastructure used by a cloud service provider” and a “processor” executing instructions. The claim limitations recite a computer readable medium containing instructions for a processor to perform. The claim, even though the claim is directed to a manufacture, is not "truly drawn to a specific" computer readable medium, but rather is directed toward the method of providing cloud provider services of a reseller for customers. Accordingly the claim limitations fail to provide a technical process. The "incidental use" of a processor did not allow the claim to meet the Alice 2A or 2B requirements.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the cloud service provider infrastructure at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a cloud infrastructure to provide cloud services to resellers, where the process claimed lacks technical disclosure and therefore, fails to provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea. This is true when the limitations are considered as a whole or as a combination of parts, the combination of steps is not sufficient. The claimed limitations are a combination of steps describing cloud services process in a particular technical environment without an process directed toward technology itself or a technical process that goes beyond generally applying the technology to perform the cloud services activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Absent a possible narrower construction of the steps “using a first portion of cloud service provider”, “creating a …virtual private label”, “using first VPLC to provide …services”, “configuring an identity management”, “creating identity information”, “performing identity management function”... are high level operations can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. . None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Applicants do not contend they invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
The specification discloses:
[0020] In various embodiments, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, storing
computer-executable instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the
one or more processors of a computer system to perform one or more methods disclosed herein.
[0245] FIG. 10 is a flow chart illustrating an example ofvPLC setup process, according to
certain embodiments. The processing depicted in FIG. 10 may be implemented in software (e.g.,
code, instructions, program) executed by one or more processing units (e.g., processors, cores) of
the respective systems, using hardware, or combinations thereof. The software may be stored on
a non-transitory storage medium (e.g., on a memory device). The method presented in FIG. 10
and described below is intended to be illustrative and non-limiting. Although FIG. 10 depicts the
various processing steps occurring in a particular sequence or order, this is not intended to be
limiting. In certain alternative embodiments, the processing may be performed in some different
order or some steps may also be performed in parallel. It should be appreciated that in alternative
embodiments the processing depicted in FIG. 10 may include a greater number or a lesser
number of steps than those depicted in FIG. 10.
[0340] FIG. 23 is a flow chart illustrating an identity management configuration process at the
reseller level, according to certain embodiments. The processing depicted in FIG. 23 may be
implemented in software (e.g., code, instructions, program) executed by one or more processing
units (e.g., processors, cores) of the respective systems, using hardware, or combinations thereof.
The software may be stored on a non-transitory storage medium ( e.g., on a memory device). The
method presented in FIG. 23 and described below is intended to be illustrative and non-limiting.
5 Although FIG. 23 depicts the various processing steps occurring in a particular sequence or
order, this is not intended to be limiting. In certain alternative embodiments, the processing may
be performed in some different order or some steps may also be performed in parallel. It should
be appreciated that in alternative embodiments the processing depicted in FIG. 23 may include a
greater number or a lesser number of steps than those depicted in FIG. 23.
With respect to the limitation “partitioning a cloud service provider infrastructure” such partitioning is well understood in the art. As evidence the examiner provides:
US Patent No. 11,689,475 B2 by Goyal “On registration and deployment, a tenancy can be created for each client/customer, which can comprise a secure and isolated partition within the cloud infrastructure in which the client can create, organize, and administer their cloud resources. …resource provisioning to users of the tenancy, wherein resources in the tenancy are provided in a plurality of compartments, wherein each compartment provides isolation of a set of resources within the compartment relative to one or more other isolated sets of resources in other compartments, wherein a request to provision a first resource in the tenancy is received from a user of the tenancy, the request comprising request characteristic data representative of a resource type of the requested first resource and a user group category assigned to the user requesting the first resource, wherein usages of the sets of resources in the tenancy spanning the plurality of compartments… wherein each compartment provides isolation of a set of the resources within the compartment relative to one or more other isolated sets of the resources in other compartments”; WO 2022/005992 A1 by Talur et al –“ the virtual private environment 402 may be logically distributed among a plurality of availability zones 406A, 406B, and 406C, each of which represents a logically isolated network environment. Each of the plurality of availability zones 406A, 406B, and 406C may further correspond to a stateful network routing service… Further, the virtual private environment 402 may provide a number of network resources across a plurality of availability zones, each of which represents an isolated set of physical devices hosting such a zone. For example, the virtual private environment 402 may include a number of network resources in a first availability zone and a number of network resources in a second availability zone. The virtual private environment 402 may further isolate network traffic within the environment 402 from traffic external to the environment 402…. which may also be referred to as availability zones or availability regions. Each zone 406 illustratively represents a computing system that is isolated from the systems of other zones “; US Pub No. 2018/0373521 By Huang et al.-abstract; FIG. 3A-C; para 0004 wherein the prior art teaches known in the art, para 0032; NPL articles “Operational strategies for isolation in cloud computing” by Nolte (2021); “Cloud-based and containerized testing environments” Revolutionizing text automation” by Palanishamy (2021); “A Review of Dynamic Resource Management in Cloud Computing Environments” by Aldossary (2020), “Recent Advances in Energy Efficient Resource Management Techniques in Cloud computing Environments” by Gholipour et al. (2021); “Microsoft publishes secure isolation guidance for Azure and Azure
Government” by Vidich (2020); A Holistic View on Resource Management in Serverless
Computing Environments: Taxonomy and Future Directions” by Mampage et al. (2021).
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environment and is silent with respect to a technical process. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 11-16 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 10. Dependent claim 11 is directed toward identity management function by an identity service stack comprising a first set of resources of the cloud services – risk mitigation. Dependent claim 12 is directed toward identity management functions for user of reseller by a first identity service stack- risk mitigation. Dependent claim 13 is directed toward identity management function for reseller by second identity service stack of second set of resources- risk mitigation. Dependent claim 14 is directed toward second identity service stack is clone of first identity service stack- applying all parameters/policy of first identity service stack to second identity service stack for access- a business process. Dependent claim 15 is directed toward creating identity information associated with first reseller performed by second identity service stack- a business process for risk mitigation and data access. Dependent claim 16 is directed toward identity information associated with reseller is identity information for users of resellers and customer of resellers.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 10. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 11-16 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
In reference to claims 17-20:
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a system, as in independent Claim 17 and the dependent claims. Such systems fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
STEP 2A Prong 1. The functions of system claim 15 corresponds to steps of method claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected as being directed toward an abstract idea of the categories of concepts directed toward methods of organizing human activity previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
STEP 2A Prong 2: The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to provide indications of patent eligible subject matter that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include a “system comprising by one or more processors”, “one or more memories storing instructions executed by the one or more processors”, “cloud services provider infrastructure (collection of hardware and software resources that enable cloud computing. (e.g. servers, storage, networking equipment, and software) in a first region (geographical area) into a plurality of portions (software coded partitions- software coded isolated computer processing resource, memory and/or storage) associated with namespaces ( logical container) )
The operations of the system including use/apply a first portion of the cloud service provider infrastructure to provide customer services, to provides resellers services .
The system applied to perform the operations “partitioning” provided cloud infrastructure in a first region into a plurality of isolated portions associated with namespaces” lacking technical disclosure” and “using the first portion…to provide services to customers”
The system performing the functions which include “creating a virtual private label cloud for a first customer based on provided infrastructure comprising a second portion, however, the limitation is high level lacking technical details and can be implemented by any known means using any known technical process for a system to perform the function.
The system performing “ configuring an identity management for reseller in provided infrastructure in a region and creating an identity information associated with a customer in a first namespace” merely applies technology at a high level with results oriented outcomes for a business process.
The system performing “identity management functions” lacking technical details, instead focusing on the data acted upon “using first identity information associated with the customer to perform identity management functions…and using identity information associated with the first reseller”.
Accordingly, the limitations recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than applying the exception using generic computer components for the purpose of using technology to provide services to resellers and customer. The claimed limitations apply system in the field of use of cloud infrastructure in order to perform identity management functions for customers and resellers allocating and providing resource and services for resellers. The claim limitations when considered individually fail to provide any indications of patent eligible subject matter, according to MPEP guidance (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e )-(h).
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the method at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired and devoid of implementation of details. This is true with respect to the limitations “partitioning the infrastructure into portions”, “ using a first portion of cloud service provider”, “creating a …virtual private label”, “using first VPLC to provide …services”, “configuring an identity management”, “creating identity information”, “performing identity management function” as the claims lack details of implementation and do not provide any technology to perform the recited functions. The claim limitations instead recite high level functions with expected outcomes. Technology is not integral to the process as the claimed subject matter is so high level that any generic programming could be applied and the functions could be performed by any known means. Furthermore, the claimed functions do not provide an operation that could be considered as sufficient to provide a technological implementation or application of/or improvement to this concept (i.e. integrated into a practical application).
When the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the limitation do not as a combination provide any indications of patent eligible subject matter under step 2A prong 2 according to case law and the USPTO 101 guidance. The combination of limitations 1 and 2-4 are directed toward using a cloud service providers infrastructure to provide cloud services and creating a virtual label for a reseller which is used to provide services of the reseller to customer and thus a commercial activity and that is applied using cloud technology as an environment in which to perform the commercial activity. The combination of limitations 1-4 and 5-8 is directed toward creating identity information of customers and resellers where the identity information is for a business process. The combination of limitations 1-8 and 9-10 is directed toward performing identity functions for customers and for a user of a reseller which is a commercial interaction process. The combinations of parts is not directed toward any technical process or technological technique or technological solution to a problem rooted in technology.
Accordingly, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the claim process fails to impose meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Although the claim limitations recite a System processor executing instructions, the processor fails to provide additional elements or combination or elements to apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Instead the system processor is merely applied as a tool for implementing the identified abstract idea. The claim provides no technical details regarding how the “configuring”, “creating”, and “performing” operations are performed by the processor. Instead, similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), “the claim language . . . provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The functions recited in the claims recite the concept of using cloud infrastructure to provide reseller services, creating private label for resellers, using the private label to provide reseller services to customers, configuring an identity management for cloud service provider, configuring an identity management for the reseller and customer in a region and second namespace and then performing identity management functions is not a process directed toward improvement to technology or solve a problem rooted in technology or an attempt to impose meaningful limits upon the judicial exception instead is a process directed toward a business practice.
The integration of elements do not improve upon technology or improve upon computer functionality or capability in how computers carry out one of their basic functions. The integration of elements do not provide a process that allows computers to perform functions that previously could not be performed. The integration of elements do not provide a process which applies a relationship to apply a new way of using an application. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments apply what generic computer functionality in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to provide cloud services and to create and perform identity management functions associated with resellers and customers and does not provide any of the determined indications of patent eligibility set forth in the 2019 USPTO 101 guidance. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using generic functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an particular technical function for performing the abstract idea that imposes meaningful limits upon the abstract idea. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any specific technological processes that goes beyond merely confining the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B; The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to concepts of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea is a system comprising one or more processors, one or more memories storing executable instructions executed by one or more processors to cause the system to perform the recited functions and a “provided infrastructure used by a cloud service provider”. The claim limitations are silent with respect to any operations performed by the used “provided infrastructure” or how the system performs the recited operations as a technical process. Accordingly the claim limitations fail to provide a technical process that goes conventional application of technology to perform an abstract idea.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the cloud service provider infrastructure at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a cloud infrastructure to provide cloud services to resellers, where the process claimed lacks technical disclosure and therefore, fails to provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea. This is true when the limitations are considered as a whole or as a combination of parts, the combination of steps is not sufficient. The claimed limitations are a combination of steps describing cloud services process in a particular technical environment without an process directed toward technology itself or a technical process that goes beyond generally applying the technology to perform the cloud services activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Absent a possible narrower construction of the steps “using a first portion of cloud service provider”, “creating a …virtual private label”, “using first VPLC to provide …services”, “configuring an identity management”, “creating identity information”, “performing identity management function”... are high level operations can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming. . None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Applicants do not contend they invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Invest Pic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s claimed functions add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The analysis concludes that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
According to 2106.05 well-understood and routine processes to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the claim into patent eligibility. As evidence the examiner provides:
The specification discloses:
[0208] As shown, infrastructure 601 can be communicatively coupled with computing devices used by users associated with direct customers 640 and with computing devices used by users associated with customers of resellers (e.g., users associated with customers 642 of reseller RI and users associated with customers 644 of reseller R2) via communication network 652. Communication network 652 can be of various types and can include one or more communication networks. Examples of communication network 652 include, without restriction,
the Internet, a wide area network (WAN), a local area network (LAN), an Ethernet network, a public or private network, a wired network, a wireless network, and the like, and combinations thereof. Different communication protocols may be used to facilitate the communications including both wired and wireless protocols such as IEEE 802.XX suite of protocols, TCP/IP, IPX, SAN, AppleTalk®, Bluetooth®, and other protocols. In general, communication network 652 may include any infrastructure that facilitates communications with infrastructure 601.
[0209] As shown in FIG. 6, infrastructure 601 is partitioned into three securely isolated portions: (1) a first portion 602 that is used for providing CSP-offered and CSP-branded cloud 25 services to one or more direct (or non-reseller) customers 640 of the CSP; (2) a second portion allocated to vPLC.Rl 604 created for reseller RI; and (3) a third portion allocated to vPLC.R2 606 created for reseller R2. In certain implementations, the three portions are securely partitioned from each other.
[0431] FIG. 34 illustrates an example computer system 3400, in which various embodiments may be implemented. The system 3400 may be used to implement any of the computer systems described above. As shown in the figure, computer system 3400 includes a processing unit 3404 that communicates with a number of peripheral subsystems via a bus subsystem 3402. These peripheral subsystems may include a processing acceleration unit 3406, an I/0 subsystem 3408, a storage subsystem 3418 and a communications subsystem 3424. Storage subsystem 3418
includes tangible computer-readable storage media 3422 and a system memory 3410.
[0432] Bus subsystem 3402 provides a mechanism for letting the various components and subsystems of computer system 3400 communicate with each other as intended. Although bus subsystem 3402 is shown schematically as a single bus, alternative embodiments of the bus subsystem may utilize multiple buses. Bus subsystem 3402 may be any of several types of bus 5 structures including a memory bus or memory controller, a peripheral bus, and a local bus using any of a variety of bus architectures. For example, such architectures may include an Industry Standard Architecture (ISA) bus, Micro Channel Architecture (MCA) bus, Enhanced ISA (EISA) bus, Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) local bus, and Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus, which can be implemented as a Mezzanine bus 10 manufactured to the IEEE P 13 86 .1 standard.
[0433] Processing unit 3404, which can be implemented as one or more integrated circuits (e.g., a conventional microprocessor or microcontroller), controls the operation of computer system 3400. One or more processors may be included in processing unit 3404. These processors may include single core or multicore processors. In certain embodiments, processing unit 3404 15 may be implemented as one or more independent processing units 3432 and/or 3434 with single or multicore processors included in each processing unit. In other embodiments, processing unit 3404 may also be implemented as a quad-core processing unit formed by integrating two dual core processors into a single chip.
[0434] In various embodiments, processing unit 3404 can execute a variety of programs in 20 response to program code and can maintain multiple concurrently executing programs or processes. At any given time, some or all of the program code to be executed can be resident in processor(s) 3404 and/or in storage subsystem 3418. Through suitable programming, processor(s) 3404 can provide various functionalities described above. Computer system 3400 may additionally include a processing acceleration unit 3406, which can include a digital signal 25 processor (DSP), a special-purpose processor, and/or the like.
With respect to the limitation “partitioning a cloud service provider infrastructure” such partitioning is well understood in the art. As evidence the examiner provides:
US Patent No. 11,689,475 B2 by Goyal “On registration and deployment, a tenancy can be created for each client/customer, which can comprise a secure and isolated partition within the cloud infrastructure in which the client can create, organize, and administer their cloud resources. …resource provisioning to users of the tenancy, wherein resources in the tenancy are provided in a plurality of compartments, wherein each compartment provides isolation of a set of resources within the compartment relative to one or more other isolated sets of resources in other compartments, wherein a request to provision a first resource in the tenancy is received from a user of the tenancy, the request comprising request characteristic data representative of a resource type of the requested first resource and a user group category assigned to the user requesting the first resource, wherein usages of the sets of resources in the tenancy spanning the plurality of compartments… wherein each compartment provides isolation of a set of the resources within the compartment relative to one or more other isolated sets of the resources in other compartments”; WO 2022/005992 A1 by Talur et al –“ the virtual private environment 402 may be logically distributed among a plurality of availability zones 406A, 406B, and 406C, each of which represents a logically isolated network environment. Each of the plurality of availability zones 406A, 406B, and 406C may further correspond to a stateful network routing service… Further, the virtual private environment 402 may provide a number of network resources across a plurality of availability zones, each of which represents an isolated set of physical devices hosting such a zone. For example, the virtual private environment 402 may include a number of network resources in a first availability zone and a number of network resources in a second availability zone. The virtual private environment 402 may further isolate network traffic within the environment 402 from traffic external to the environment 402…. which may also be referred to as availability zones or availability regions. Each zone 406 illustratively represents a computing system that is isolated from the systems of other zones “; US Pub No. 2018/0373521 By Huang et al.-abstract; FIG. 3A-C; para 0004 wherein the prior art teaches known in the art, para 0032; NPL articles “Operational strategies for isolation in cloud computing” by Nolte (2021); “Cloud-based and containerized testing environments” Revolutionizing text automation” by Palanishamy (2021); “A Review of Dynamic Resource Management in Cloud Computing Environments” by Aldossary (2020), “Recent Advances in Energy Efficient Resource Management Techniques in Cloud computing Environments” by Gholipour et al. (2021); “Microsoft publishes secure isolation guidance for Azure and Azure
Government” by Vidich (2020); A Holistic View on Resource Management in Serverless
Computing Environments: Taxonomy and Future Directions” by Mampage et al. (2021).
The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environment and is silent with respect to a technical process. The claim is not patent eligible.
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 18-20 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 17. Dependent claim 18 is directed toward identity management function by an identity service stack comprising a first set of resources of the cloud services – risk mitigation. Dependent claim 19 is directed toward identity management functions for user of reseller by a first identity service stack- risk mitigation. Dependent claim 20 is directed toward identity management function for user of first reseller performed by second identity service stack comprising second resources- risk mitigation.
The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 17. Where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 7 Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims 18-20 are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-9; Claims 10-16 and Claims 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2016/0132806 A1 by To et al. (To) and further in view of US Pub No. 2023/0006889 A1 by Thyagaturu (Thyagaturu)
In reference to Claim 1:
To teaches:
(Currently Amended) A method ((To) in at least Fig. 7-8), comprising
partitioning a cloud service provider (CSP)-provided infrastructure … into a plurality of portions of CSP-provided infrastructure, each portion of CSP-provided infrastructure being isolated from other portions of CSP-provided infrastructure and being associated with a … namespace ((To) in at least FIG. 2; para 0029, para 0093, para 0098 wherein the prior art teaches creating overlay network on substrate and provide a separate namespace for overlay network, para 0101-0102 wherein the prior art teaches multi-tenant environment where each application may have its own namespace , para 0158);
using a first portion of the plurality of portions of the CSP provided infrastructure in a first region to provide one or more CSP-offered cloud services to one or more customers of the CSP ((To) in at least Fig. 6C; para 0029, para 0079, para 0098, para 0102, para 0145);
creating a first virtual private label cloud (vPLC) for a first reseller based upon the CSP-provided infrastructure, wherein creating the first VPLC comprises allocating a second portion of the CSP-provided infrastructure to the first vVPLC ((To) in at least Fig. 9A; para 0159, para 0169, para 0172, para 0175, para 0192, para 0199-0201, para 0217);
using the first VPLC to provide one or more first reseller-offered cloud services to one or more customers of the first reseller ((To) in at least Abstract; para 0025-0026)
configuring an identity management for the CSP based on the CSP-provided infrastructure ((To) in at least FIG. 12-14; para 0009, para 0017, para 0020, para 0022, para 0026);
configuring an identity management for the first reseller based on the CSP- provided infrastructure in a region ((To) in at least FIG. 12-14; para 0009, para 0017, para 0020, para 0022, para 0026, para 0028, para 0030);
creating identity information associated with a customer of the CSP in a first namespace ((To) in at least para 0028-0029, para 0085, para 0087, para 0098 wherein the prior art teaches creating and provide a separate namespace for the network layer (public ip addresses), para 0102);
creating identity information associated with the first reseller in a second namespace that is different than the first namespace ((To) in at least Fig. 3, FIG. 14; para 0021-0023, para 0028-0029 wherein the prior art teaches applications created and delivered encapsulates applications in dedicated containers, para 0098 wherein the prior art teaches creating and provide a separate namespace for the network layer (public ip addresses), para 0102-0103 wherein the prior art teaches each application has its own namespace, para 0145, para 0153, para 0158, para 0197, para 0204, para 0208, para 0217-0218) ;
performing identity management functions for the customer of the CSP using the identity information associated with the customer of the CSP ((To) in at least Fig. 14; para 0103, para 0135, para 0153, para 0197-0198, para 0202, para 0204, para 0218-0220) ; and
performing identity management functions for a user of the first reseller using the identity information associated with the first reseller ((To) in at least Fig. 14; para 0204, para 0207, para 0218-0220).
To does not explicitly teach:
partitioning a cloud service provider (CSP)-provided infrastructure in a first region…unique namespace
Thyagaturu teaches:
partitioning a cloud service provider (CSP)-provided infrastructure in a first region into a plurality of portions of CSP-provided infrastructure, each portion of CSP-provided infrastructure being isolated from other portions of CSP-provided infrastructure and being associated with a unique namespace ((Thyagaturu) in at least para 0038, para 0105-0106 wherein the prior art teaches workload instance have unique ID’s, namespaces in managing containerized applications (see Kubernetes®); para 0127, para 0154, para 0173, para 0176, para 0180, para 0214, para 0306, para 0317-0318)
Both To and Thyagaturu are directed toward providing cloud infrastructure services where the cloud resources are partitioned into containers/portions associated with customers. Thyagaturu teaches the motivation such resource data centers may be organized and deployed into geo-regional locations where such cloud services provide coverage where the computing resources are sharable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention expand the generic cloud resource services of To to include cloud resources in regions as taught by Thyagaturu since Thyagaturu teaches the motivation such resource data centers may be organized and deployed into geo-regional locations where such cloud services provide coverage where the computing resources are sharable.
With respect to the limitation “unique namespace”, both To and Thyagaturu teach partitioning cloud resources into containers/portions with associated namespaces. Thyagaturu teaches the motivation of an identifier namespace of sources for a set of source service applied in the managements of containerized applications where a container may use the same or difference containerization technologies with specific properties unique to the container for example name, namespace, unique ID, labels and/or principals. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention expand the details of container namespace of To to include unique namespace as taught by Thyagaturu since Thyagaturu teaches the motivation of an identifier namespace of sources for a set of source service applied in the managements of containerized applications where a container may use the same or difference containerization technologies with specific properties unique to the container for example name, namespace, unique ID, labels and/or principals.
In reference to Claim 2:
The combination of To and Thyagaturu discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. To further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 2
(Original) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the identity management functions for the customer of the CSP is performed by a first identity service stack comprising
a first set of resources of the CSP-provided infrastructure.((To) in at least Abstract; FIG. 4-5; para 0028)
In reference to Claim 3:
The combination of To and Thyagaturu discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. To further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 3
(Original) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the identity management functions for the user of the first reseller is performed by the first identity service stack.((To) in at least FIG. 5, FIG. 12; para 0028, para 0079, para 0081-0082, para 0164)
In reference to Claim 4:
The combination of To and Thyagaturu discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. To further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 4
(Original) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the identity management functions for the user of the first reseller is performed by a second identity service stack comprising a second set of resources of the CSP-provided infrastructure. ((To) in at least FIG. 5 wherein the prior art teaches building and deploying resource stack template; para 0020 wherein the prior art teaches catalog service to provide plurality of software products/resources; para 0022 wherein the prior art teaches administrators create and manage catalogs/portfolios where each catalog are accessible only by a subset of customer organizations and portfolios contain sets of products of different types)
In reference to Claim 6:
The combination of To and Thyagaturu discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. To further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 6
(Original) The method of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above),
wherein creating the identity information associated with the first reseller is performed by the first identity service stack. ((To) in at least para 0026, para 0030-0031, para 0079)
In reference to Claim 7:
The combination of To and Thyagaturu discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. To further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 7
(Original) The method of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above),
wherein creating the identity information associated with the first reseller is performed by the second identity service stack. ((To) in at least para 0118)
In reference to Claim 8:
The combination of To and Thyagaturu discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. To further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 8
(Original) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising
configuring the identity management for a second reseller of the CSP based on the CSP-provided infrastructure ((To) in at least para 0025-0026); and
creating identity information associated with the second reseller in a third namespace ((To) in at least para 0028-0029 wherein the prior art teaches applications created and delivered encapsulates applications in dedicated containers, para 0098, para 0102-0103 wherein the prior art teaches each application has its own namespace) .
Although the prior art reference does not explicitly recite “second reseller” or “third namespace”, the prior art does teach customer organizations in the plurality building applications/catalogs for their end users and that “para 0028-0029 wherein the prior art teaches applications created and delivered encapsulates applications in dedicated containers, para 0098, para 0102-0103 wherein the prior art teaches each application has its own namespace” which makes clear that there are at least a second or multiple resellers and namespace. According to KSR and common sense rationale, when the prior art provides some teaching or motivation that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art reference or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art modify the reference with a reasonable expectation of success. The modification is obvious.
Furthermore, according to MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced
In reference to Claim 9:
The combination of To and Thyagaturu discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. To further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 9
(Original) The method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the identity information associated with the first reseller comprises identity information for users of the first reseller, and users of customers of the first reseller. ((To) in at least Fig. 14; para 0103, para 0135, para 0153, para 0197-0198, para 0202, para 0204, para 0207, para 0218-0220)
In reference to Claim 10:
The combination of To and Thyagaturu discloses the limitations of independent claim 10.
The instructions of non-transitory computer readable claim 10 executed by one or more processors correspond to the method steps of method claim 1. The additional limitations recited in claim 10 that go beyond the limitations of claim 1 include the a “non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions((To) in at least para 0226).
Therefore, claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
In reference to Claim 11:
The combination of To and Thyagaturu discloses the limitations of independent claim 10. To further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 11
The instructions of medium claim 11 corresponds to the steps of method claim 2. Therefore, claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 2.
In reference to Claim 12:
The combination of To and Thyagaturu discloses the limitations of independent claim 10. To further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 12
The instructions of medium claim 12 corresponds to the steps of method claim 3. Therefore, claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 3.
In reference to Claim 13:
The combination of To and Thyagaturu discloses the limitations of independent claim 11. To further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 13
The instructions of medium claim 13 corresponds to the steps of method claim 4. Therefore, claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 4.
In reference to Claim 14:
The combination of To and Thyagaturu discloses the limitations of independent claim 10. To further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 14
The instructions of medium claim 14 corresponds to the steps of method claim 6. Therefore, claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 6.
In reference to Claim 15:
The combination of To and Thyagaturu discloses the limitations of independent claim 10. To further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 15
The instructions of medium claim 15 corresponds to the steps of method claim 6. Therefore, claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 7
In reference to Claim 16:
The combination of To and Thyagaturu discloses the limitations of independent claim 10. To further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 16
The instructions of medium claim 16 corresponds to the steps of method claim 9. Therefore, claim 16 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 9.
In reference to Claim 17:
The combination of To and Thyagaturu discloses the limitations of independent claim 17
The operations of system claim 17 correspond to the method steps of method claim 1. The additional limitations recited in claim 17 that go beyond the limitations of claim 1 include a system comprising ((To) in at least abstract; FIG. 2, FIG. 4; para 0094-0095, para 0108).
One or more processors ((To) in at least para 0221-0222); and
One or more memories storing computer executable instructions that when executed by the one or more processors ((To) in at least para 0221, para 0223, para 0226). Cause the system to perform the operations corresponding to claim 1
Therefore, claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
In reference to Claim 18:
The combination of To and Thyagaturu discloses the limitations of independent claim 17. To further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 18
The operations of system claim 18 corresponds to the steps of method claim 2. Therefore, claim 18 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 2.
In reference to Claim 19:
The combination of To and Thyagaturu discloses the limitations of independent claim 17. To further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 19
The operations of system claim 19 corresponds to the steps of method claim 3. Therefore, claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 3.
In reference to Claim 20:
The combination of To and Thyagaturu discloses the limitations of independent claim 17. To further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 20
The operations of system claim 20 corresponds to the steps of method claim 4. Therefore, claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 4.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2016/0132806 A1 by To et al. (To) in view of US Pub No. 2023/0006889 A1 by THyagaturu (Thyagaturu), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of WO 2020/252088 A1 by Michael et al. (Michael)
In reference to Claim 5:
The combination of To and Thyagaturu discloses the limitations of dependent claim 4. To further discloses the limitations of dependent claim 5
(Original) The method of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above),
To does not explicitly teach:
wherein the second identity service stack is a clone of the first identity service stack.
Michael teaches:
wherein the second identity service stack is a clone of the first identity service stack. ((Michael) in at least Fig. 8C; page 7 lines 18-35, page 18 lines 2-6)
Both To and Michael are directed toward providing cloud resources where resources are routed on different hosts. Michael teaches the motivation of cloning stack in order to address issues such as hardware failures, memory failures, network failure,…, that arise when migrating/moving resource from one resource provide to another when a host or other computer components goes down. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention expand on the details of deployment of cloud resource to different hosts of To to include cloning identity service stack of Michael since Michael teaches the motivation of cloning stack in order to address issues such as hardware failures, memory failures, network failure,…, that arise when migrating/moving resource from one resource provide to another when a host or other computer components goes down.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub No. 2021/0182940 A1 by Gupta et al; .US Patent No. 10,411,975 B2 by Martinez et al; US Patent No. 9,824,390 B2 by Adapalli et al.; E2E Network Slicing – Key 5G technology- What is it? Why do we need it? How do we implement it? By Harrison et al (2015)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY M GREGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Christine Behncke can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
/MARY M GREGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3695