DETAILED ACTION
Statement of claims
The present application includes:
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-20 are being considered on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/08/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 .
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, Claim 1 recites A computing system comprising: a communications module; a processor coupled to the communications module; and a memory coupled to the processor storing instructions that, when executed by the computing system, cause the computing system to: “determine a current borrowed resource threshold based on a measure of an amount of the next regularly scheduled replenishment operation attributable to a time period that began on a last regularly scheduled replenishment operation and ended at a current time”, “determine that an amount of borrowed resources required for fulfillment of the early access instruction is less than the current borrowed resource threshold”, “in response to determining that the amount of borrowed resource required for fulfillment of the early access instruction is less than the current borrowed resource threshold, fulfill the early access instruction , wherein fulfillment of the early access instruction enables a computing operation to be performed that could not be performed without such fulfillment.” . The limitations of “determining” , “fulfill” is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “logical storage area”, “resource threshold”, “an amount”, “replenishment operation” , “current time”, “access instruction”, “computing operation”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Under Prong 2,
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional elements “receive an early access instruction associated with a first logical storage area, the early access instruction requesting early access to at least a portion of resources associated with a next regularly scheduled replenishment operation”, “providing access to the amount of borrowed resources” which “receive … “ , “providing…” amounts to data gathering and display which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional element of " A computing system “, “a communications module”,” a processor”, “a memory”, “a computing operation” , “logical storage area “ are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B,
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “receive … “ , “providing…” are Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
Therefore, claim 1 as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Consequently, claim 1 is not eligible
Further claim 2 recite the additional element “monitor for the next regularly scheduled replenishment operation; and in response to detecting the next regularly scheduled replenishment operation, perform a reversal operation to replenish the borrowed resources.” are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application), which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional element of “replenishment operation”, “reversal operation” merely recite the generic computer or computer components for carrying out or applying the abstract idea . Accordingly, these additional elements, does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further claim 3 recite the additional element “wherein performing the reversal operation includes performing a data transfer associated with the first logical storage area”, are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application), which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional element of “performing a data transfer” , “logical storage area” merely recite the generic computer or computer components for carrying out or applying the abstract idea . Accordingly, these additional elements, does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further claim 4 recite the additional element “wherein performing the reversal operation includes applying an input output modifier during the reversal operation.”, are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application), which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional element of “input output modifier” merely recite the generic computer or computer components for carrying out or applying the abstract idea . Accordingly, these additional elements, does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further claim 5 recite the additional element “wherein the instructions further cause the computing system to: monitor for the next regularly scheduled replenishment operation”, are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application), which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional element of “replenishment operation” merely recite the generic computer or computer components for carrying out or applying the abstract idea . Accordingly, these additional elements, does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further claim 5 recite “determine that a next regularly scheduled replenishment operation was not performed as scheduled; and in response to determining that the next regularly scheduled replenishment operation was not performed as scheduled, generate a notification on a device associated with the first logical storage area.” is function that can be reasonably performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion.The limitations of “determine …”, “generate” is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting " replenishment operation”, “a notification on a device”, “logical storage area” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Further claim 6 recite the additional element “wherein the notification includes a selectable option to initiate a replenishment operation.”, are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application), which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional element of “replenishment operation” merely recite the generic computer or computer components for carrying out or applying the abstract idea . Accordingly, these additional elements, does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further claim 7 recite the additional element “wherein the current borrowed resource threshold is further determined based on past resource access requests”, is function that can be reasonably performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion.The limitations of “determined …”, is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting " borrowed resource threshold”, “access requests” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Further claim 8 recite the additional element “wherein the current borrowed resource threshold is further determined by applying a modifier to the measure of an amount of the next regularly scheduled replenishment operation attributable to a time period that began on a last regularly scheduled replenishment operation and ended at a current time, the modifier reducing the current borrowed resource threshold.”, are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application), which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional element of “applying a modifier to the measure of an amount”, “replenishment operation” , “a time period “, “current time”, “resource threshold”, merely recite the generic computer or computer components for carrying out or applying the abstract idea . Accordingly, these additional elements, does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further claim 9 recite the additional element provide, at a device associated with the first logical storage area, an indication of the current borrowed resource threshold for display in an interface.”, are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application), which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional element of “display in an interface” merely recite the generic computer or computer components for carrying out or applying the abstract idea . Accordingly, these additional elements, does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further claim 10 recite the additional element “wherein the early access instruction is received via the interface when the current borrowed resource threshold is displayed in the interface”, are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application), which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional element of “displayed in the interface” merely recite the generic computer or computer components for carrying out or applying the abstract idea . Accordingly, these additional elements, does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further claim 11 recite the additional element “wherein the early access instruction is received via a slider interface element.”, are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, insignificant application), which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional element of “slider interface element” merely recite the generic computer or computer components for carrying out or applying the abstract idea . Accordingly, these additional elements, does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 12-20 :
Similar analysis as claims 1-9 applies to claims 12-20.
For at least these reasons, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker (US 2022/0005005, Parker hereinafter) in view of Prendergast et al. (US 2023/0080249, Prendergast hereinafter).
As to claim 1, Parker teaches a computing system (e.g., Figure 1) comprising:
a communications module (e.g., “140”, Figure 1);
a processor (e.g., “110”, Figure 1) coupled to the communications module; and
a memory(e.g., “120”, figure 1) coupled to the processor storing instructions that, when executed by the computing system, cause the computing system to:
receive an early access instruction associated with a first logical storage area, the early access instruction requesting early access to at least a portion of resources associated with a next regularly scheduled replenishment operation (e.g., see FIG. 17C, para 151,152 and 153 , “ the GigPay module receives a request from a GigPay user”, “balances are compiled for each GigPay user”, “determining how much is due to GigPay users based on requests”, “funds at the end of a shift, week, pay period or another period”, “tips owed are added to the hourly wage”, “account for immediate use for the GigPay user”, “Funds dispersed to GigPay users are replenished”, “short term revolving loans to the employer which are based on credit card receivables and which are made for the benefit of employees may be paid for by the employees who are paid much faster using the GigPay arrangements”.
Thus, the account represent first logical storage area, the “funds”, “loans to the employer” for the “replenishment operation”, therefore receive an early access instruction associated with a first logical storage area, the early access instruction requesting early access to at least a portion of resources associated with a next regularly scheduled replenishment operation ) ;
determine a current borrowed resource threshold based on a measure of an amount of the next regularly scheduled replenishment operation attributable to a time period that began on a last regularly scheduled replenishment operation and ended at a current time (e.g., “a current balance owed”, “an amount earned for the day, an amount earned for the week, and total earnings for the month” , “amounts received as tips from customers individually or as a total over a period of time” and “the user to specify an amount up to the current balance to withdraw” in para 159.
Thus, the an amount up to the current balance” include the threshold);
determine that an amount of borrowed resources required for fulfillment of the early access instruction is less than the current borrowed resource threshold (e.g., para 156, “to transfer part”, “…of the GigPay user's balance to a bank”,. Thus the balance include the threshold , therefore paart/ less than the current borrowed resource threshold); and
in response to determining that the amount of borrowed resource required for fulfillment of the early access instruction is less than the current borrowed resource threshold, fulfill the early access instruction by providing access to the amount of borrowed resources (e.g., para 156, “balance to a bank, such as by direct deposit on-demand”. Thus, fulfill the early access instruction by providing access to the amount of borrowed resources) .
However, Parker does not teach wherein fulfillment of the early access instruction enables a computing operation to be performed that could not be performed without such fulfillment
Prendergast teaches, determine that an amount of borrowed resources required for fulfillment of the early access instruction is less than the current borrowed resource threshold (see FIG. 4, para 85, “ determination of whether a resource threshold event is likely in the future may be based on one or more scheduled debits or credits for the user account”) , wherein fulfillment of the early access instruction enables a computing operation to be performed that could not be performed without such fulfillment (e.g., see FIG. 5, para 98, “ If no external resource system is associated with the user or the user account, then in operation 510 “, it may mean denying or declining the transfer instruction because it would result in a resource threshold event;” and “ the transfer instruction handler 145 may be configured to deny or decline the transfer instruction 170 if it would cause a resource threshold event and external resources are unavailable or insufficient “ in para 58.
According to applicant’s specification in para 31 “…determining that a next regularly scheduled replenishment operation was not performed as scheduled..”.
Thus determine that an amount of borrowed resources required for fulfillment of the early access instruction is less than the current borrowed resource threshold wherein fulfillment of the early access instruction enables a computing operation to be performed that could not be performed without such fulfillment).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Parker with those of Prendergast because both references are directed to related systems addressing similar technical problems within the same field and seek to improve system performance, reliability, and efficiency.
Parker et al. disclose a system architecture that provides scheduled replenishment operation, fulfillment providing access to the amount of borrowed resources while Prendergast et al. teach complementary techniques for monitoring the amount of borrowed resources, determining that operation that could not be performed . Incorporating the teachings of Prendergast et al. into the system of Parker et al. would have been a predictable and logical modification, yielding improved operational robustness and efficiency without requiring undue experimentation.
Such a combination would merely involve the substitution or integration of known elements performing their established functions, as taught by Prendergast et al., into the system of Parker et al., consistent with design incentives and market demands for improved performance and scalability. Moreover, Prendergast et al. explicitly recognize benefits to “having the user constantly monitor the account level in order to take anticipatory action to move resources before any transfer instructions are generated that would cause a resource threshold event or real-time processing or handling of the transfer instructions produces an improved transfer processing system that minimizes resource threshold events in a computing-efficient manner. —that would naturally be desirable in the system of Parker et al. (see para 32).
Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Parker et al. with Prendergast et al., and the combination represents no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their known functions.
As to claim 7, Parker teaches wherein the current borrowed resource threshold is further determined based on past resource access requests (e.g., para 158, “ type of information that can be used to identify one or more transactions “, “The Transfer to Bank selectable option may show the current balance available for withdrawal and allow the user to specify an amount up to the current balance to withdraw” in para 159. Thus, wherein the current borrowed resource threshold is further determined based on past resource access requests).
As to claim 8, Parker teaches wherein the current borrowed resource threshold is further determined by applying a modifier to the measure of an amount of the next regularly scheduled replenishment operation attributable to a time period that began on a last regularly scheduled replenishment operation and ended at a current time, the modifier reducing the current borrowed resource threshold (e.g., see FIG. 36, para 156, “an amount earned for the day, an amount earned for the week, and total earnings for the month”, “ by direct deposit on-demand”, “the GigPay user to transfer part or all of the GigPay user's balance to another GigPay user.” and “The Transfer to Bank selectable option may show the current balance available for withdrawal and allow the user to specify an amount up to the current balance to withdraw” in para 159. Thus, wherein the current borrowed resource threshold is further determined by applying a modifier to the measure of an amount of the next regularly scheduled replenishment operation attributable to a time period that began on a last regularly scheduled replenishment operation and ended at a current time, the modifier reducing the current borrowed resource threshold would have been inherent).
As to claim 9, Parker teaches wherein the instructions further cause the computing system to: provide, at a device associated with the first logical storage area, an indication of the current borrowed resource threshold for display in an interface (e.g., see FIG. 36, para 156, “ amounts received as tips from customers individually or as a total over a period of time, pay from employers, and transfers/pay to other users.” for “types of information that can be used to identify a transaction on the GigPay user interface” in para 157. Thus, to: provide, at a device associated with the first logical storage area, an indication of the current borrowed resource threshold for display in an interface).
As to claim 10, Parker teaches wherein the early access instruction is received via the interface when the current borrowed resource threshold is displayed in the interface(e.g., see FIG. 36, para 157, “types of information that can be used to identify a transaction on the GigPay user interface” and “FIG. 36, a GigPay user interface includes selectable links on the left side and profile picture of the GigPay user on the upper left with a label” in para 156).
As to claim 11, Parker teaches wherein the early access instruction is received via a slider interface element (e.g., see FIG. 36, para 155, “FIG. 36, a GigPay user interface includes selectable links on the left side and profile picture of the GigPay user on the upper left with a label”).
As to claim 12, see rejection of claim 1 above.
As to claims 18-20, see rejection of claims 7-9 above.
Claim(s) 2-6 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker (US 2022/0005005, Parker hereinafter) in view of Prendergast et al. (US 2023/0080249, Prendergast hereinafter), as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Ledford et al. (US 2017/0221066, Ledford hereinafter).
As to claim 2, Parker and Prendergast do not teach wherein the instructions further cause the computing system to: monitor for the next regularly scheduled replenishment operation; and in response to detecting the next regularly scheduled replenishment operation, perform a reversal operation to replenish the borrowed resources. However, Ledford teaches monitor for the next regularly scheduled replenishment operation; and in response to detecting the next regularly scheduled replenishment operation, perform a reversal operation to replenish the borrowed resources ( e.g., see para 138, 153 and 154, wherein “ the network 130 conducts a reversal of the update to the multilateral net settlement position of the debtor FI 111 and/or creditor FI 120 (i.e., a reversal of step 223)”, “ the “request for payment rejected” message is received”, “Return of Funds”, “in the case of error, a payer can ability request a return of funds”, “a return of funds refund can require a new transaction to return the funds to the requester” and “a process to request the return of funds sent in error, in one example embodiment, a return can be requested only for a sender error. For example, a receiver may recognize that a payment was made in error, sends an indication to the payer that the payment is being returned, the payment is returned to the payer, which recognizes that the payment was made in error. In another example embodiment, after the receiver (payee) recognizes that a payment was made in error, it sends a pacs.008 transaction to send the funds back (i.e., “return”) to the payer. The payer can send a message to the payee indicating that the payment was made in error” in para 157. Thus, monitor for the next regularly scheduled replenishment operation; and in response to detecting the next regularly scheduled replenishment operation, perform a reversal operation to replenish the borrowed resources).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Parker and Prendergast by adopting the teachings of Ledford in order to “ minimizing or substantially reducing fraudulent or unauthorized transactions and the like, and streamlining processes for returning funds and correcting errors” (of Ledford , para 13).
As to claim 3, parker teaches further wherein performing operation includes performing a data transfer associated with the first logical storage area (e.g., para 156, “to transfer part or all of the GigPay user's balance to a bank”) . However, parker does not teach performing the reversal operation. Ledford teaches the reversal operation includes performing a data transfer (e.g., para 138, “the debtor FI 111's position is reversed/credited by the applicable rejected payment amount”. Thus, the reversal operation includes performing a data transfer).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Parker and Prendergast by adopting the teachings of Ledford to have wherein performing the reversal operation includes performing a data transfer associated with the first logical storage area, in order to “ minimizing or substantially reducing fraudulent or unauthorized transactions and the like, and streamlining processes for returning funds and correcting errors” (of Ledford , para 13).
As to claim 4, Parker and Prendergast do not teach wherein performing the reversal operation includes applying an input output modifier during the reversal operation. However, Ledford teaches wherein performing the reversal operation includes applying an input output modifier during the reversal operation (e.g., para 138, “conducts a reversal of the update to the multilateral net settlement position of the debtor FI 111 and/or creditor FI 120”, “updates the status of the payment transaction to indicate that the payment has been rejected”. Thus, applying an input output modifier during the reversal operation).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Parker and Prendergast by adopting the teachings of Ledford in order to “ minimizing or substantially reducing fraudulent or unauthorized transactions and the like, and streamlining processes for returning funds and correcting errors” (of Ledford , para 13).
As to claim 5, Parker does not teach to: monitor for the next regularly scheduled replenishment operation; determine that a next regularly scheduled replenishment operation was not performed as scheduled; and in response to determining that the next regularly scheduled replenishment operation was not performed as scheduled, generate a notification on a device associated with the first logical storage area . However, Prendergast teaches further the next regularly scheduled replenishment operation; determine that a next regularly scheduled replenishment operation was not performed as scheduled; and in response to determining that the next regularly scheduled replenishment operation was not performed as scheduled ( see rejection of claim 1 above) .Ledford teaches in response to determining that the next regularly scheduled replenishment operation was not performed as scheduled, generate a notification on a device associated with the first logical storage area (e.g., see FIG. 3, para 154, “n the case of error, a payer can ability request a return of funds”, “ requests for a return of funds refund can require a new transaction to return the funds to the requester” and “ return can be requested only for a sender error. For example, a receiver may recognize that a payment was made in error, sends an indication to the payer that the payment is being returned, the payment is returned to the payer, which recognizes that the payment was made in error” in para 157. Thus , in response to determining that the next regularly scheduled replenishment operation was not performed as scheduled, generate a notification on a device associated with the first logical storage area).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Parker and Prendergast by adopting the teachings of Ledford in order to “ minimizing or substantially reducing fraudulent or unauthorized transactions and the like, and streamlining processes for returning funds and correcting errors” (of Ledford , para 13).
As to claims 13-17, see rejection of claims 2-6 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu (US 2020/0117620) discloses A device includes an arbiter circuit configured to receive a first request for a resource. The first request is associated with a first credit cost. The arbiter circuit is further configured to receive a second request for the resource. The second request is associated with a second credit cost. The arbiter circuit is further configured to select the first request for the resource as an arbitration winner. The arbiter circuit is further configured to decrement a number of available credits associated with the resource by the first credit cost. The arbiter circuit is further configured to, in response to the number of available credits associated with the resource falling to a lower credit threshold, wait until the number of available credits associated with the resource reaches an upper credit threshold to select an additional arbitration winner for the resource.
Phillips et al. (US 20160077846) disclose A provider network may implement resource credit pools to replenish resource credit balances for virtual compute instances. A resource credit pool may be maintained that makes resource credits available to virtual compute instances authorized to obtain resource credits from the resource credit pool. Resource credits from the resource credit pool may be applicable to increase utilization of physical computer resource for a virtual compute instance. In response to a resource credit request for an authorized virtual compute instance, a number of resource credits to add to an individual resource credit balance for the authorized virtual compute instance may be determined. A response may be sent indicating the number of resource credits to add to the individual resource credit balance and the resource credit pool may be updated to remove the number of resource credits from the resource credit pool.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDOU K SEYE whose telephone number is (571)270-1062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at 5712724215. 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.
/ABDOU K SEYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198