CTNF 18/454,434 CTNF 83869 DETAILED ACTION 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are pending. Objections and rejection are recited below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority This application, filed on 23 August 2023 is given priority from 23 August 2023 . Specification Applicant’s specification is objected to because it is not clear what constitutes load. For example, paragraph [0025] of US Pub. No. of 20250068481 A1 of Applicant’s specification recites: [0025] For each group in all groups of similar instances, the instances exceeding the frequency threshold may be combined into a first recurring load use, and all other instances may be combined into a second recurring load use. The plurality of second recurring load uses in Recurring Load Uses 134 represent discretionary expenditures or load uses and constitute the maximal extent to which a new expenditure can be made. For example, the system may determine that a user with a monthly budget of 5,000 has first recurring load uses totaling 3,500 and second load uses totaling 1,500 . That is, the user has a disposable limit of 1,500. A purchase of 1,800 therefore cannot be made by this user using discretionary funds at their disposal. In such situations, the system may generate a notification to the user that the requested expenditure cannot be achieved. Similarly, for a computer network using network resources that the system determines to have first recurring load uses totaling 6,400 and second recurring load uses of 400, a task that requires 600 units of network resources cannot be completed. The system may thus generate a notification to the user system that the requested load usage cannot be achieved. As recited in the specification, Examiner does not understand what the load of, for example, “5,000”, “3,500” or “1,500” refers to; no units for these quantities are disclosed. Examiner request that Applicant describe these quantities in response to this office action. Claim Objections Claims 1-20 are objected to because the claims recite “”rebalance load usage” However, ”load usage” is a broad term such at it is not clear what constitutes a load. Paragraphs [0025], [0026] and [0048] of US Pub. No. of 20250068481 A1 of Applicant’s specification discusses budget and expenditures . However, the claims are devoid of such terminology. Examiner suggest adding such terminology in order to clarify as to what the Applicant means to claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1 , the preamble recites “ A system for recommending load rebalancing based on learned patterns of recurrence, the system comprising ” and the limitations recite method steps. It is not clear if the Applicant means to claim a system or a method. If the Applicant means to claim a system, he should use a claim structure similar to: “A system for recommending load rebalancing based on learned patterns of recurrence, the system comprising: ( system components and structure ) …, the system performing the method steps of: receiving a request from a user system …; receiving a load usage dataset over a first period of time … ( other method steps )” If the Applicant wishes to claim a method , he should use words similar to: “A method for recommending load rebalancing based on learned patterns of recurrence, the system comprising: receiving a request from a user system …; receiving a load usage dataset over a first period of time … ( other method steps )” For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as a system substantially similar to the method of claim 2, with missing structure. Correction is required. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are computerized hardware. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, claims 2-12 are directed to a “ method ” which is one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims are directed to the abstract idea of generating a recommendation which is grouped under a method of organizing human activity or mental process. in prong one of step 2A (See MPEP 2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility [R-10.2019] ). Claims recite: receiving a request from a user system to rebalance load usage, wherein the request comprises a requested load usage; receiving a load usage dataset over a first period of time, wherein each entry in the load usage dataset corresponds to an instance of load use and specifies an amount and a category of the instance of load use; determining similar instances based on a respective amount and respective category of each entry; clustering the similar instances into a first cluster and second cluster based on frequencies of the similar instances, wherein the first cluster corresponds to high-frequency similar instances, and wherein the second cluster corresponds to low-frequency similar instances; combining one or more load uses corresponding to the first cluster into a first recurring load use in the load usage dataset; combining one or more load uses corresponding to the second cluster into a second recurring load use in the load usage dataset; determining elasticity scores for the first recurring load use and the second recurring load use, wherein a higher elasticity score indicates a higher feasibility of reducing an extent of a load use; comparing the requested load usage to the elasticity scores of the first recurring load use and the second recurring load use; and based on the comparison, generating a recommendation to the user system for rebalancing load usage for a second period of time. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility [R-10.2019] ). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application [R-07.2022]), no additional elements represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The method steps only convey the acts of “ collecting information, analyzing the information and providing the results of the analysis ”. When analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More [R-07.2022] ), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself because the ordered combination does not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. No computer or computer program instructions are recited. Hence, claims are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 3-11 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 a judicial exception (Step 2A- Prong One). Nor are the claims directed to a practical application to a judicial exception ( Step 2A- Prong Two). For example, claims 3-11 are silent as to “ additional elements ” which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of a judicial exception, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. They merely further describe the abstract idea of generating a recommendation . Accordingly, none of the dependent claims add a technological solution to the method of organizing human activity in the independent claim. Note : The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of claim 1 otherwise styled as a system, and claims 13-20 styled as a non-transitory computer readable medium would be subject to the same analysis. Regarding claims 13-20 specifically: Claims 13 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium performing the method steps of claim 2. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility [R-10.2019] ). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application [R-07.2022] ), the additional elements of the claim are one or more processors which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than link a computerized system to the method steps of “ collecting information, analyzing the information and providing the results of the analysis ”. When analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More [R-07.2022] ), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself because the ordered combination does not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Thus, viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of generating a recommendation using computer technology (e.g. the processor). Hence, claims are not patent eligible Conclusion The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Additional Comments Regarding claims 1-20 , in view of pending rejections, the Examiner is unable to locate prior art references that anticipate the claimed invention or renders it obvious. The closest prior art of record is Anand et al (US Pub. No. 20200167189 A1). Anand teaches a method, system, and computer program product for balance workloads [0004]. He teaches deploying one or more applications, defining a priority for a first application of the one or more applications, assigning a set of dynamic resources to the first application, configuring a set of burst reserves for the first application, configuring a schedule for the priority for the first application, configuring an elastic load balancer to manage the workload of the first application according to the priority and scheduling using the set of dynamic resources and burst reserves, and executing the one or more applications [Id.]. He teaches a first cluster of nodes running a gaming service/application (e.g., an application critical to the business of the user), a second cluster of nodes running service discovery (also critical to the business of the user), and a third cluster of nodes running/managing a blog service (not critical to the business of the user) [0017]. However, the prior art of record does not teach: determining elasticity scores for the first recurring load use and the second recurring load use, wherein a higher elasticity score indicates a higher feasibility of reducing an extent of a load use; comparing the requested load usage to the elasticity scores of the first recurring load use and the second recurring load use; and based on the comparison, generating a recommendation to the user system for rebalancing load usage for a second period of time. Conclusion 07-96 The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Qui et al : “CAPACITY SCHEDULING IN A DATA-PROCESSING CLUSTER”, (US Pub. No. 20190227842 A1). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD J BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)270-3330. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am to 3:30 pm M-F. 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 Applicant wishes to correspond to the Examiner via email, Applicant needs to file an AUTHORIZATION FOR INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS IN A PATENT APPLICATION form. The form may be downloaded at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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. /EDWARD J BAIRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/454,434 Page 2 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/454,434 Page 3 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/454,434 Page 4 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/454,434 Page 5 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/454,434 Page 6 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/454,434 Page 7 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/454,434 Page 8 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/454,434 Page 9 Art Unit: 3692 Application/Control Number: 18/454,434 Page 10 Art Unit: 3692
Prosecution Insights