DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-- a second set -- should be -- the second set -- in claim 2 line 4, claim 9 line 4, claim 16 line 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-- drag-and-drp -- should be -- drag-and-drop -- in [0012].
-- a interactive -- should be -- an interactive -- in [0012].
-- a account -- should be -- an account -- in [0041] [0043] [0045].
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term Amazon, Microsoft, Google IBM Oracle Alibaba etc ([0010]), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following claim language is not clearly understood:
Claim 1 recites “remaining applications of the first set of applications that are excluded from the sequential execution order”. It is unclear which applications are remaining application and /or which applications are excluded from the sequential execution.
Claim 6 recites “ optimal execution pattern for first/second set of applications”. It is unclear what determines an execution pattern is optimal and how the optimal execution pattern is used to determine sequential/parallel execution recited in claim 1.
Claims 8 and 15 recite elements of claim 1 and have similar deficiency as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational. Remaining dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claims.
* Applicant is advised to at least indicate support present in the specification for further defining/clarifying the claim language in case Applicant believe amendments would unduly narrow the scope of the claim.
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 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 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 or integrating into practical application.
Based upon at least the decision by the United States Supreme Court in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014), post-Alice precedential court decisions, and 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Examples of abstract ideas include at least Mathematical concepts, Mental process and Certain Methods of organizing human activity. Independent claim 1 is directed to “determining set of applications for the cloud account based on the requested functionality; determining sequential execution order for the second set of applications and parallel execution of application of remaining first set of application to be executed after the set of dependencies and at least one application of the first set of application have been executed; executing the set of applications and sending notification of successful execution” at a high level of generality.
Step 1
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 1 recites a method, which falls within the “process” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 8 recites a system comprising memory/processors, which falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 15 recites a non-transitory medium, which falls within the “process” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, the analysis determines whether the claims recite a judicial exception and fail to integrate the exception into practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Re. 54-55. If both elements are satisfied, the claims are directed to a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test, See id.
Step 2A Prong One
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Claim Elements
i
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
common computing
ii
determining, based on functionality information received with a request from a user device to generate a cloud account, a first set of applications for the cloud account that each facilitate at least one function indicated by the functionality information;
mental process abstract idea
iii
determining, based on a respective set of dependencies for each application of a second set of applications mapped to at least one application of the first set of applications, a sequential execution order for the second set of applications to be executed after the respective set of dependencies and the at least one application of the first set of applications have been executed;
mental process abstract idea
iv
determining a parallel execution order for remaining applications of the first set of applications that are excluded from the sequential execution order;
mental process abstract idea
v
executing, based on the sequential execution order, the second set of applications after the respective set of dependencies and the at least one application of the first set of applications is executed;
common computing
vi
executing, based on the parallel execution order, the remaining applications of the first set of applications; and
common computing
vii
sending, based on an indication that each application of the first set of applications and each application of the second set of applications is executed successfully, a notification to the user device that facilitates access to the cloud account.
mental process abstract idea
The overall process described by steps [ii]-[iv] and [vii] describes “concepts performed in the human mind” or “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg, 52. Thus steps [ii]-[iv] and [vii] recite the abstract concept of [m]ental processes.” Id. For example, step [ii] recites “determining, based on functionality information received with a request from a user device to generate a cloud account, a first set of applications for the cloud account that each facilitate at least one function indicated by the functionality information”, which is directed to determining set of application that facilitate functions based on functionality associated with cloud account, and is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion and can be performance by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper. Claim 1 step [iii] recites “determining, based on a respective set of dependencies for each application of a second set of applications mapped to at least one application of the first set of applications, a sequential execution order for the second set of applications to be executed after the respective set of dependencies and the at least one application of the first set of applications have been executed”, and is directed to determining a sequential execution order for second set of application based on the set of dependencies for each application of a second set of application mapped to application of the first set of application, after the execution of first set of application and dependencies, , which is directed to determining set of application that facilitate functions based on functionality associated with cloud account, and is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion and can be performance by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper. Claim 1 in step [iv] recites “determining a parallel execution order for remaining applications of the first set of applications that are excluded from the sequential execution order”, which is also a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion and can be performance by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper. Claim 1 in step [vii] recites “sending, based on an indication that each application of the first set of applications and each application of the second set of applications is executed successfully, a notification to the user device that facilitates access to the cloud account”, which is directed to sending notification to the user after successful execution of set of applications, and is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion and can be performance by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper. Therefore, steps [ii]-[iv] and [vii] resembles the idea of performing observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion according to the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claim elements and can be performed by human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception. For these same reasons/analysis, claims 8 and 15 recites judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Because claims 1, 8 and 15 recite a judicial exception, Analysis determines if the claims recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application. In addition to the limitations of claim 1 discussed above that recite the abstract concepts, claim 1 also recites additional steps [i], [v]-[vi]. Claim 1 in step [i] recites a computer-implemented method, and merely recites common computing method. Therefore, these do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 1 step [v]-[vi] are directed to parallel/sequential execution of the one or more application, which is common computing method and is neither inventive nor provide improvement to the technology and/or technical field and therefore do not integrate into practical application. The Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations recited in claim 1 steps [i], [v]-[vi]from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, the claim elements recited in steps [i], [v]-[vi], under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception without integrating into practical application. For these same reasons and based on similar analysis / rationale as above, claims 8 and 15 also recites judicial exception without integrating into practical application.
Step 2B
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)).
Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Because claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to judicial exception, analysis must determine, according to Alice, whether these claims recite an element, or combination of elements that is enough to ensure that the claim is directed to significantly more than a judicial exception.
The Memorandum, Section III (B) (footnote 36) states:
In accordance with existing guidance, an Examiner’s conclusion that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must be supported with a factual determination. For more information concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, convention activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum.
The Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III(A)(1) states:
A Specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, on in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 §U.S.C. 112(a). A finding that an element is well-understood, routine, or conventional cannot be based only on the fact that the specification is silent with respect to describing such element.
Claim 1 in step [i] recites a computer-implemented method, and merely recites common computing method and therefore do not amount to significantly more. Claim 1 step [v]-[vi] are directed to parallel/sequential execution of the one or more application, which is common computing method and is considered extra solution activity and is well-understood, routine and conventional as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. As such these additional claim elements are not directed to anything beyond conventional nature of these elements or otherwise more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field of computing. These limitations either alone or in combination simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Thus, Claims 1 is directed to the judicial exception without integrating into practical application or amount to significantly more. Based on similar analysis / rationales as above, claims 8 and 15 are also directed to the mental process abstract idea and neither integrate into practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Dependent claim 2 is directed to generating a dependency graph that indicates dependency relationships between each application of a second set of applications and the at least one application of the first set of applications; and determining, based on the dependency graph, the sequential execution order, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion and can be performance by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper.
Dependent claim 3 is directed to wherein the determining the sequential execution order is further based on respective priority levels assigned to each application of the second set of applications, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion and can be performance by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper.
Dependent claim 4 is directed to modifying the sequential/parallel execution order based on an update to at least one of an application of the first set of applications or an application of the second set of applications, and modifying, based on an execution of the first set of applications according to the modified parallel execution order, the cloud account, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion and can be performance by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper.
Dependent claim 5 is directed to the notification comprising at least one of: an access link for accessing the cloud account, or a credential for accessing the cloud account, which is neither inventive nor provide improvement to the technology/technical field; and is well-understood, routine and conventional.
Dependent claim 7 is directed to recommending and adding application for the first set of application based on operational pattern of the device, which is which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion and can be performance by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper.
Based on similar analysis as above, dependent claims 9-12, 14-19 recite claim elements that are either abstract idea or additional claim elements, that individually or in combination, are either generic computing methods/components or insignificant pre-post solution activity and neither integrate into practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to judicial exception without integrating into practical application or significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections set forth in this office action.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Interpreting the claims in light of the specification examiner finds the claimed invention is patentably distinct from the prior art of record. The prior art of record does not expressly teach or render obvious the invention as recited in amended independent claims.
Reimer et al. (US 2020/0187004 A1) teaches securely storing, using and/or updating credential information, e.g., passwords and user IDs for a user who subscribes to one or more services, e.g., video stream services or other services available through a communications network such as the Internet, are described.
Sutardja (US 2020/0076917 A1) teaches binding a public cloud account and a personal cloud account is described. A pre-approval list indicates that user's Public cloud
account and personal cloud account are approved for binding. A copy of the pre-approval list is stored on the personal cloud device; another copy is stored on the public cloud service. The user logs into the public cloud account using a client device. Based on the pre-approval list stored on the public cloud service, the client device obtains information identifying the user's personal cloud account. The personal cloud device verifies the pre-approval of the binding based on the pre-approval list stored on the personal cloud device. The personal cloud device transmits a verification to the public cloud service. Each of the public cloud service and the personal cloud device stores information indicating the binding.
Bannihatti Kumar et al. (US 12,475,489 A1) teaches system for providing a network-based service infrastructure configuration for a plurality of network-based services. A configuration service may identify one or more network-based services based on identifying the customer's profile and grouping the customer with other customers having a similar profile. After grouping the customer input, the configuration service may automatically provide network infrastructure configuration templates. The configuration service may identify and verify attributes required by each identified service and its associated property values. The configuration service may configure the infrastructure configuration by selecting a template from the plurality of templates stored in a datastore.
Procopio et al. (US 10,346,416 B2) teaches cloud computing system identifies when to recommend applications to a user and what recommendations to make. When the user makes a request related to the applications associated with the user, the cloud computing system identifies the subject of the request. The cloud computing system identifies criteria for recommending applications based on the subject, scores applications available to the user based on the identified criteria, and filters applications based on their scores to recommend applications to the user.
Fahlbusch et al. (US 2021/0352137 A1) teaches techniques for implementing
cloud services of a cloud service provider in a dedicated user account environment in a distributed computing system are disclosed. In some example embodiments, a computer-implemented method comprises: receiving, by a management system of a cloud service provider, a user request for creation of an instance of an application platform of the cloud service provider in a user environment within a distributed computing system, the user environment being dedicated to a user account hosted by the distributed computing system, the user request comprising credential data configured to provide the management system with limited permission for accessing the user environment, the limited permission restricting the management system from full administrative privileges in accessing the user environment; and deploying, by the management system, the instance of the application platform to a workload cluster in the user environment using the credential data to access the user environment.
The combination of prior arts of record do not expressly teach or render obvious the limitations of “determining, based on functionality information received with a request from a user device to generate a cloud account, a first set of applications for the cloud account; determining and then executing, based on a respective set of dependencies for each application of a second set of applications mapped to at least one application of the first set of applications, a sequential execution order for the second set of applications to be executed after the respective set of dependencies and the at least one application of the first set of applications have been executed; determining and then executing a parallel execution order for remaining applications of the first set of applications that are excluded from the sequential execution order”, when taken in the context of the claims as a whole, as recited in the independent claims 1, 8 and 15 were not disclosed in the prior arts of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABU ZAR GHAFFARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3799. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9:00 - 17:00 Hrs.
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, Aimee Lee can be reached on 571-272-4169. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABU ZAR GHAFFARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195