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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendment filed on 10/13/25. Claims 1, 8 and 12 are amended. Claims 1-17 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/19/26 and 8/18/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Although claims 1-17 fall under at least one of the four statutory categories, it should be determined whether the claim wholly embraces a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106 I and II).
Claims 1-17 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the Abstract Idea
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c).
The identified limitations of independent claims 1, 8, 12 recite:
As to claim 1, A computer-implemented method for allocating resources between data centers in response to insufficient resources at one of the data centers, the method comprising:
in response to a request for resources, determining, by a first data center, whether said resources exceed remaining resources of a participant allocated, from a pool of resources of the participant, to the first data center, the request for resources including an authorization request for a transaction [mimic human thought processes of determine certain resource exceed allocation, i.e., evaluation, and creating, perhaps with paper and pencil];
in response to determining that the requested resources exceed the remaining resources of the first data center [mimic human thought processes of determine request resource exceed allocation, i.e., evaluation, and creating, perhaps with paper and pencil]:
reserving, by the first data center, the remaining resources of the first data center for the transaction [mimic human thought processes of noting by reserving the resource transaction, i.e., evaluation, and creating, perhaps with paper and pencil];
appending, by the first data center, a first reserve entry for the remaining resources to a first ledger of the first data center [mimic human thought processes of recording the entry (considering applicant spec. appending is define as recording), i.e., evaluation, and creating, perhaps with paper and pencil]; and
submitting, by the first data center, to a second data center, a request to reserve a difference between the resources in the request and the remaining resources of the first data center from resources of the participant allocated, from the pool of resources of the participant, to the second data center; and then
in response to a time interval expiring without the reserved remaining resources being utilized, based on the transaction failing [mimic human thought processes of timeout reserved period i.e., evaluation, and creating, perhaps with paper and pencil]:
releasing, by the first data center, the reserved remaining resources for use in one or more subsequent requests for the resources [mimic human thought processes of releasing the reserved resource i.e., evaluation, and creating, perhaps with paper and pencil]; and
notifying the second data center of the release of the reserved remaining resources and/or of the time interval expiring without the reserved remaining resources being utilized.
The identified limitations recite in system, a method and CRM for data center resource allocation. The claim limitations fall within the Mental concepts – preforming by a human (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I) groupings of abstract ideas. The claim limitations using generic computing components does not preclude the claim limitations from being in the certain Mental concepts – preforming by a human concept grouping. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the “…determining…reserving…append…release…” encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or using pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Thus, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2A, prong two: additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”, while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
As to claim 1, A computer-implemented method for allocating resources between data centers in response to insufficient resources at one of the data centers, the method comprising:
in response to a request for resources, determining, by a first data center, whether said resources exceed remaining resources of a participant allocated, from a pool of resources of the participant, to the first data center, the request for resources including an authorization request for a transaction;
in response to determining that the requested resources exceed the remaining resources of the first data center:
reserving, by the first data center, the remaining resources of the first data center for the transaction;
appending, by the first data center, a first reserve entry for the remaining resources to a first ledger of the first data center; and
submitting, by the first data center, to a second data center, a request to reserve a difference between the resources in the request and the remaining resources of the first data center from resources of the participant allocated, from the pool of resources of the participant, to the second data center; and then
in response to a time interval expiring without the reserved remaining resources being utilized, based on the transaction failing:
releasing, by the first data center, the reserved remaining resources for use in one or more subsequent requests for the resources; and
notifying the second data center of the release of the reserved remaining resources and/or of the time interval expiring without the reserved remaining resources being utilized.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims as a whole merely describe how to mere data gathering and notifying i.e….submitting…notifying…, recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. processor, non-transitory medium in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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.
Dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
Part II. Determine whether any Element, or Combination, Amounts to“Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea itself
Under Part II, the steps of the claimed invention, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not improve another technology or technical field, do not improve the as explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements. The additional element of “…submitting…notifying…“ in are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additional elements that were underline were both found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). functioning of the computer itself, and are not enough to qualify as "significantly more". MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) states that “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, 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)). Therefore, based on the two-part Mayo analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself. Claims 1-17, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional claims do no recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim(s) 1-7, 9-11, 13-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, claims 2-7, 9-11, 13-17 mere disclose further define the reserving, appending and notifying allocation of resource i.e. [which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or using pen and paper]. Therefore, dependent claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-17 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-17 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
(A) Applicant argues "...It should be understood, then, that the requests may not be balanced to the data centers (e.g., either in quantity, amount of resources, etc.), and the resources may be rebalanced from time to time. Occasionally, a request may be received, which includes an amount of resources allocated to the first data center, but some of which may be allocated to the second data center. That is, the participant possesses enough resources to fulfill the request, but due to the allocation of the resources for purposes of parallel processing, the resources are divided and unavailable from a single data center for the request. See, e.g., q[0011 (a request may require more resources than available at one of the data centers). This is a technical problem borne out of the technology relating to parallel processing of resources and data, which is used between different data centers to ultimately improved the processing throughput of the processing network. ” (from remarks pages 8-10).
As to point (A), Examiner respectfully disagrees, The argument is not persuasive because the claims do not include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically recited computer products. The generically recited computer elements such “non-transitory computer-readable storage memory, data center” do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation. The steps for resource allocation for the data centers do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the abstract idea. Note the court’s analysis in Ultramercial:
And adding a computer to otherwise conventional steps does not make an invention patent-eligible. Any transformation from the use of computers or the transfer of content between computers is merely what computers do and does not change the analysis.
Further note the court’s analysis in Alice Corp.:
These cases demonstrate that the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words `apply it'" is not enough for patent eligibility. Mayo, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 3). Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea "`to a particular technological environment.'" Bilski, supra, at 610-611. Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to "implemen[t]" an abstract idea "on . . . a computer," Mayo, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 16), that addition cannot impart patent eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of computers, see 717 F. 3d, at 1286 (Lourie, J., concurring), wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of "additional featur[e]" that provides any "practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself." Mayo, 566 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8-9).
In the case of the instant claims, the generic application of the computing devices similarly does not make the invention patent-eligible. The use of these computing devices is merely what computers do, and does not change the analysis. As such, the claims' invocation of the computer merely amounts to the limiting of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Note that the applicant’s disclosure recites general computer products which are suitable to perform the claimed method:
(Paragraph [0020])
FIG. 2 illustrates an example computing device 200 that can be used in the system 100. The computing device 200 may include, for example, one or more servers, workstations, personal computers, laptops, tablets, smartphones, etc. In addition, the computing device 200 may include a single computing device, or it may include multiple computing devices located in close proximity, or multiple computing devices distributed over a geographic region, so long as the computing devices are specifically configured to function as described herein. In at least one embodiment, the computing device 200 is accessed (for use as described herein) as a cloud, fog and/or mist type computing device. In the system 100, the first party 102, the acquirer 104, the processing network 106, and the issuer 108, as well as data centers 110a-b and ledgers 112a-b, may each include and/or be considered one or more computing devices, which may include or be consistent, in whole or in part, with the computing device 200. With that said, the system 100 should not be considered to be limited to the computing device 200, as described below, as different computing devices and/or arrangements of computing devices may be used. In addition, different components and/or arrangements of components may be used in other computing devices.
Moreover, the specification does not contribute any specific computer algorithm or code, but rather merely states that the claimed steps may be performed by the generic modules with the expectation that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of implementation without further instruction.. Any problems which are addressed do not appear to require a technical, but rather an enhanced by common generic hardware. Whilst the implementation of such a solution may include the use of generic technical features, these merely serve their well-known functions as would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art in the technical field under consideration. Here, the involvement of the genetic computer products does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-eligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. In Ultramercial, it is noted that limitations narrowing the idea, such as receiving copyrighted media, selecting an ad, offering the media in exchange for watching the selected ad, displaying the ad, allowing the consumer access to the media, and receiving payment from the sponsor of the ad, further describe the abstract idea but do nothing to render the concept less abstract. Similarly, in buySafe it is noted that narrowing transactions to particular types of relationships or particular parts of that transaction would not render the concept less abstract. Similarly, in the case of the instant claims, limitations drawn to the implementation of the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Herb et al. (US 2023/0017632 A1) disclose A process includes obtaining a workload and a set of candidate computing resources and predicting amounts of carbon emissions attributable to executing the workload on different members of the set of candidate computing resources. The process also includes predicting measures of computing performance in executing the workload of the different members of the set of candidate computing resources and computing a set of scores based on the amounts of carbon emissions and the measures of computing performance. The process also includes orchestrating the workload based on the scores.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HITESH R PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5442. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, James Trammell can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
6/11/26
Prosecution Insights