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 .
Detail Action
On 08/10/2023, Application 18/447,768 is filed with claims 1-20.
This is a Non-Final Action.
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 abstract idea/ mental process without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites the step of:
…determining one or more computing services based on the one or more policy rules and the one or more parameters of the request…
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites mere instructions to apply an exception (A computer-implemented method), with additional elements comprising only insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of:
obtaining a request from a client device to execute a computing task, wherein the request includes one or more parameters for the computing task; obtaining one or more policy rules that indicate a plurality of computing services and selection criteria for the plurality of computing services, wherein the plurality of computing services include at least two different distributed ledger networks;…. And providing the request to the one or more computing services to perform the computing task.
Amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Further, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 2 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (computer-implemented method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 2 recites the additional element of:
electing a particular contribution node of the distributed ledger; providing the request to the particular contribution node; obtaining a response from the distributed ledger; and providing the response to the client device, wherein the response indicates a state of execution of the computing task.
Amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 2 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 3 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (computer-implemented method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 3 recites the additional element of:
wherein the plurality of computing services are selected from a group of: a storage service, a smart contract service, a token transaction service, and an inventory management service.
Amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 3 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 4 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (computer-implemented method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 4 recites the additional element of:
wherein the computing task includes a communication between the at least two different distributed ledger networks.
Amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 3 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 5 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (computer-implemented method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 5 recites the additional element of:
providing one or more application programming interfaces configured to transmit the request to the one or more computing services.
Amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 5 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 6 also recites the step of:
based on one or more of: a cost parameter of the one or more computing services, a maturity parameter of the one or more computing services, a stability parameter of the one or more computing services, and an availability parameter of the one or more computing services.
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 6 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (The computer-implemented method of claim 1) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 6 recites the additional element of:
providing a selection model that determines the one or more computing services based the one or more parameters of the request and
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 6 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 7 is dependent on claims 1 and 6, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claims 1 and 6.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 7, 6 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (computer-implemented method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 7 recites the additional element of:
wherein the selection model comprises a multi-armed bandit model.
Amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 7 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 1 and 6, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 8 is dependent on claims 1 and 6, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claims 1 and 6.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 8, 6 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (computer-implemented method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 8 recites the additional element of:
training the machine learning model using training data including previous computing tasks executed by the plurality of computing services or other computing services.
Amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 8 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 1 and 6, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claims 10-16 are directed to a system comprise the steps which the at least one processing platform of the computer-implemented method of claims 1-6 and 8 are configured to perform. Claims 10-16 recite the same limitations as claims 1-6 and 8, respectively; therefore, claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a method without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1-6 and 8. See above.
Claims 17-20 are directed to a readable storage media comprise the steps which the at least one processing platform of the computer-implemented method of claims 1-4 are configured to perform. Claims 17-20 recite the same limitations as claims 1-4, respectively; therefore, claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a method without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1-4. See above.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duraisingh et al US 2021/0191826.
18/447,768
Duraisingh et al US 2021/0191826
Claim 1
A computer-implemented method comprising:
Duraisingh abstract;
obtaining a request from a client device to execute a computing task, wherein the request includes one or more parameters for the computing task;
Duraisingh p0065-p0147;
obtaining one or more policy rules that indicate a plurality of computing services and selection criteria for the plurality of computing services, wherein the plurality of computing services include at least two different distributed ledger networks;
Duraisingh p0090-p0105;
Duraisingh teaches at service provided to multiple networks. See Duraisingh p0034-p0088; Communication between Wired and wireless network. Duraisingh p0053;
determining one or more computing services based on the one or more policy rules and the one or more parameters of the request; and
providing the request to the one or more computing services to perform the computing task.
Duraisingh p0065-p0147;
Claim 2
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more computing services comprises a distributed ledger, and further comprising:
selecting a particular contribution node of the distributed ledger;
providing the request to the particular contribution node;
obtaining a response from the distributed ledger; and
providing the response to the client device, wherein the response indicates a state of execution of the computing task.
Duraisingh p0059-p0085;
Claim 3
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of computing services are selected from a group of:
a storage service, a smart contract service, a token transaction service, and an inventory management service.
Duraisingh p0048-p0085;
Claim 4
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the computing task includes a communication between the at least two different distributed ledger networks.
Duraisingh p0053
Claim 5
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
providing one or more application programming interfaces configured to transmit the request to the one or more computing services.
Duraisingh p0048-p0085;
Claim 6
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: providing a selection model that determines the one or more computing services based the one or more parameters of the request and based on one or more of: a cost parameter of the one or more computing services, a maturity parameter of the one or more computing services, a stability parameter of the one or more computing services, and an availability parameter of the one or more computing services.
Duraisingh p0145;
Clam 9
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: updating the one or more policy rules based on monitoring the plurality of computing services.
Duraisingh p0050-p0091;
As per claims 10-15, they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-6. See rejection above.
As per claims 17-20, they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-4. See rejection above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7, 8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duraisingh et al US 2021/0191826 in view of Faulhaber, Jr. et al. US 2019/0156244.
18/447,768
Duraisingh et al US 2021/0191826 in view of Faulhaber, Jr. et al. US 2019/0156244
Claim 7
The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the selection model comprises a multi-armed bandit model.
Duraisingh p0065-p0147;
Faulhaber teaches bandit models. (see p0062)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Faulhaber’s teaching with method of Duraisingh in order to allow user to implement different learning model.
Claim 8
The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the selection model comprises a machine learning model, and further comprising:
training the machine learning model using training data including previous computing tasks executed by the plurality of computing services or other computing services.
Faulhaber p0055-p0066;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Faulhaber’s teaching with method of Duraisingh in order to allow user to implement different learning model.
As per claim 16, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8. See rejection above.
Conclusion
Here is a list of references relates to Network Distribution System:
Rodriguez et al. US 20220171648: Container-First Architecture.
Barkett et al. US 2022/0308911: System and Method for a distributed workflow system.
Cella US 2019/0340716: Transaction-enabled systems and methods for creating an aggregate stack of intellectual property.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENG KE whose telephone number is (571)272-4062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-5:00.
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, Kevin Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
PENG KE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/PENG KE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194