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 .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection of 09/17/2025, Applicant, on 12/17/2025, amended claims 1, 8, and 15. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. The 35 USC § 103 rejection has been overcome. However, the updated 35 USC § 101 rejection of claims 1-20 are applied in light of Applicant's amendments.
The Applicant argues “such additional elements, whether alone or in combination with the alleged recited judicial exception (mathematical concept or certain method of organizing human activity), provide an improvement to a technology or technical field. See M.P.E.P. §2106.05(a). That is, assuming arguendo that Applicant's claimed invention can be interpreted as reciting a judicial exception (abstract idea), Applicant's claimed invention is not directed to the judicial exception since the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception.” (Remarks 12/17/2025)
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed subject matter, is directed to an abstract idea by reciting mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations which falls into the “Mathematical concepts” group; and by reciting fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) which falls into the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of methods of organizing human activity or the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concepts for performing certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claimed subject matter is merely claims a method for calculating and analyzing information regarding pricing for cloud services. Although it may be intended to be performed in a digital environment, the claimed subject matter (as currently claimed in the independent claim) speaks to the calculating and analyzing (modeling and projecting) data. Such steps are not tied to the technological realm, but rather utilizing technology to perform the abstract idea (organizing human activity). Additionally, the claimed subject matter can also be categorized as a mathematical concepts as it recites the utilization of mathematical models/theories/concepts. The steps of calculating data, training/updating models, and generating a model can be performed by a human (mental process/pen and paper). The practice of calculating information and constructing models with set parameters and timelines can be performed without computers, and thus are not tied to technology nor improving technology.
The solution mentioned in the amended limitation is not implemented/integrated into technology and thus not an improvement to the technical field. Further, there is no integration into a practical application as the claims can be interpreted as humans per se, as the claims fail to tie the steps to technology; insignificant extra solution activities (which are merely calculating and/or analyzing data). See M.P.E.P. §2106.05(h).
The steps relied upon by the Applicant as recited does not improve upon another technology, the functioning of the computer itself, or allow the computer to perform a function not previously performable by a computer. The claims do not mention to any use of a specialized computer and/or processor. The Applicant is using generic computing components (processors) to perform in a generic/expected way (obtaining and analyzing data).The abstract idea is not particular to a technological environment, but is merely being applied to a computer realm. The process of calculating and analyzing data specifically cloud services, and performing additional analysis can be done without a computer, and thus the claims are not “necessarily rooted", but rather they are utilizing computer technology to perform the abstract idea. The Examiner does not recognize any elements of the Applicant's claims and/or specification that would improve or allow the computer to perform a function(s) not previously performable by the computer, or improve the functioning of the computer itself. It is insufficient to indicate that the claims are novel and non-obvious, and thus contain “something more.” Just because the components may perform a specialized function does not mean that that the computer components are specialized. As such the application of the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing data regarding a service system, and performing correlation analysis is insufficient to demonstrate an improvement to the technology.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1-7), computer program product (claims 8-13), and system (claims 14-20) are directed to potentially eligible categories of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations which falls into the “Mathematical concepts” group; and by reciting fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) which falls into the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of methods of organizing human activity or the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concepts for performing certain methods of organizing human activity.
The limitations reciting the abstract idea(s), as set forth in exemplary claim 1, are: modeling the multi-cloud environment using a game theoretic model by defining the multi-cloud environment to consist of cloud buyers, such that each cloud buyer has a machine learning workflow to run, wherein the machine learning workflow is composed of a data extraction task and a machine learning task, wherein the game theoretic model is a trading network corresponding to a business-to-business network linking the cloud buyers and cloud providers in a marketplace; creating a probability distribution over information technology costs for the cloud buyers and the cloud providers, wherein the cloud buyers are purchasers of computing resources, wherein the cloud providers provide on-demand, scalable computing resources; calculating an estimate of an expected utility for each party in a single-cloud environment; (Mathematical concepts)and creating a centralized broker for the multi-cloud environment that collects payments from the cloud buyers and makes payments to the cloud providers using the estimated expected utility for each party in the single-cloud environment and the probability distribution over information technology costs for the cloud buyers and the cloud providers as parameters to the game theoretic model; (Organizing human activity). Independent claims 8 and 15 recite the CRM and system for performing the method of independent claim 1 without adding significantly more. Thus, the same rationale/analysis is applied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to: A computer-implemented method for establishing a multi-cloud environment… a machine learning workflow to run, wherein the machine learning workflow is composed of a data extraction task and a machine learning task… creating a mechanism centralized broker for the multi-cloud environment …establishing the multi-cloud environment by the centralized broker; A computer program product for establishing a multi-cloud environment, the computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage mediums having program code embodied therewith, the program code comprising programming instructions for…; a memory for storing a computer program for establishing a multi-cloud environment; and a processor connected to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions of the computer program…; (as recited in the claims). However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) is/are directed to: A computer-implemented method for establishing a multi-cloud environment… a machine learning workflow to run, wherein the machine learning workflow is composed of a data extraction task and a machine learning task… creating a mechanism centralized broker for the multi-cloud environment …establishing the multi-cloud environment by the centralized broker; A computer program product for establishing a multi-cloud environment, the computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage mediums having program code embodied therewith, the program code comprising programming instructions for…; a memory for storing a computer program for establishing a multi-cloud environment; and a processor connected to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions of the computer program…; (as recited in the claims) for implementing the claim steps/functions. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. Even if the acquiring steps are considered as additional elements, these steps at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity accomplished via receiving/transmitting data, which is not enough to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
In addition, Applicant’s Specification (paragraph [0030]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. See, e.g., Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Further, the courts have found the presentation of data to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The dependent claims (2-7, 9-14, and 16-20) are directed to the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract idea via additional details of the abstract idea. For example claims 2-7 “calculating the estimate of the expected utility for each party in the single-cloud environment and creating the probability distribution over information technology costs for cloud users and the cloud providers using information about the single-cloud environment, wherein the information comprises current prices, costs, cost discounts, negotiation practices, and contracts; creating the mechanism for the multi-cloud environment that collects payments from the cloud buyers and makes payments to the cloud providers using an automated mechanism design; wherein the automated mechanism design is applied to the game theoretic model; wherein the automated mechanism design solves an optimization problem to create the mechanism for the multi-cloud environment that collects payments from the cloud buyers and makes payments to the cloud providers; wherein the mechanism fulfills the following requirements: maximizing a sum of utilities for parties to the multi-cloud environment, revealing true costs is an optimal strategy for parties to the multi-cloud environment, ensuring parties to the multi-cloud environment obtain on average a higher utility in the multi-cloud environment than in the single-cloud environment, and ensuring the mechanism does not lose money on average from participating in the multi-cloud environment; wherein the game theoretic model corresponds to trading networks”, without additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and without additional elements that amount to significantly more to the claims. The remaining dependent claims (9-14and 16-20) recite the CRM and system for performing the method of claims 2-7. Thus, the same rationale/analysis is applied. Thus, all dependent claims have been fully considered, however, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea itself, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Narasimhan; Balaji. PRICING RULES MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONALITY WITHIN A CLOUD SERVICE BROKERAGE PLATFORM, .U.S. PGPub 20150206207 The disclosures made herein relate generally to cloud computing architectures and management methodologies and, more particularly, to methodologies and systems for implementing pricing rules management functionality within a cloud service brokerage platform.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arif Ullah, whose telephone number is (571) 270-0161. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 5:30 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell, can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax telephone numbers for this group are either (571) 273-8300 or (703) 872-9326 (for official communications including After Final communications labeled “Box AF”).
/Arif Ullah/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625