DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s communications filed on 9/11/2023 have been considered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03. Claims 1-7 are directed towards a process. Claims 8-14 are directed towards a manufacture. Claims 15-20 are directed towards a machine. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES, regarding claims 1-20).
Under Step 2A of the MPEP, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception. See MPEP 2106.04. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception.
Taking Claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
a method for integrating one or more public marketplace listings with metadata services, comprising:
processing a selection of a public marketplace listing from the one or more public marketplace listings, wherein each public marketplace listing includes a globally unique identifier and including a pricing model table that lists one or more pricing models and an associated globally unique identifier for each pricing model therein;
obtaining the globally unique identifier for the selected public marketplace listing from the metadata services;
identifying a pricing model corresponding to the obtained globally unique identifier from the pricing model table; and
in response to identifying the globally unique identifier in the pricing model table, performing the identified pricing model.
Claims 8 and 15 recite the same limitations believed to be abstract as recited in claim 1.
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites the abstract idea of selecting and fulfilling a listing for software. These recited limitations fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities" Grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04.
Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1, 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Claim 1 recites additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), including a computer-implemented method; one or more public cloud marketplace listings; cloud metadata services; a public cloud marketplace listing; a cloud-based application; a cloned software image; and performing a boot sequence of the cloned software image. Claim 8 recites the same additional elements as recited in claim 1, and additionally recites a computer program product residing on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon which, when executed across one or more processors, causes at least a portion of the one or more processors to perform operations. Claim 15 recites the same additional elements as recited in claim 1, and additionally recites a computer system including one or more processors and one or more memories configured to perform operations.
These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1, 8 and 15 specifying that the abstract idea of selecting and fulfilling a listing for software is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1, 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1, 8 and 15 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES). Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Next, under Step 2B, the instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements of a computer-implemented method; one or more public cloud marketplace listings; cloud metadata services; a public cloud marketplace listing; a cloud-based application; a cloned software image; performing a boot sequence of the cloned software image; a computer program product residing on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon which, when executed across one or more processors, causes at least a portion of the one or more processors to perform operations; and a computer system including one or more processors and one or more memories configured to perform operations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Therefore when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-19, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. As for dependent claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 8 and 15, and do not recite any additional elements other than what is disclosed in independent claims 1, 8 and 15. Therefore, claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 4-7, 11-14 and 18-20, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 8 and 15. Additionally, they recite the following additional limitations:
wherein a common base image is used for each cloned software image such that cloning the software image cannot modify the product code;
adjusting cloud-based application behavior using the pricing model by at least one of: reading a persisted value directly from the pricing model table; and sending a query to the cloud metadata service via an application programming interface (API);
in response to not identifying a corresponding globally unique identifier, canceling a boot sequence; and
in response to identifying an unaffiliated globally unique identifier that does not correspond to any of the one or more pricing models, canceling a boot sequence.
The additional elements of a common base image; cloning the software image; adjusting cloud-based application behavior; an application programming interface (API); and canceling a boot sequence are all recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exception in a generic technological environment. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-4, 8-11 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application No. 2019/0228445 A1 to Golden et al., hereinafter Golden, in view of U.S Patent Application No. 2024/0313977 A1 to Li et al., hereinafter Li.
Regarding Claim 1, Golden discloses A computer-implemented method for integrating one or more public cloud marketplace listings with cloud metadata services, comprising ([0035-0039] an electronic service image marketplace 100, i.e., the “Hosted Web Services Catalog”, where providers may upload service images and specify associated information such as identifiers, file location, pricing information, and other parameters; [0052] after receiving a request to acquire access to the service image, the marketplace server 112 may transmit a command which causes the launch of the service on a hosted computing environment… the marketplace server 112 may further transmit the selected service image to the selected hosted computing environment; [0055] the user interface 800 enables a customer to receive information regarding service images acquired via the electronic service image marketplace):
processing a selection of a public cloud marketplace listing for a cloud-based application from the one or more public cloud marketplace listings ([0052] a customer may request to acquire a service image the customer has found and selected from the electronic service image marketplace 100 by selecting an input button… see [0005] a service image corresponds to software applications/configurations),
wherein each public cloud marketplace listing includes a globally unique identifier and a cloned software image, the cloned software image including a pricing model table that lists one or more pricing models and an associated globally unique identifier for each pricing model listed therein ([0038] the provider may specify a pricing structure associated with the service image; [0042] display feature 526 of a service image available via the marketplace depicts a version number of the service image, and the display feature 526 is selectable to view alternative versions of the selected service that are available; [0046][Fig. 5C] Fig. 5C depicts additional information regarding options available to customers for executing the displayed service image… display feature 544 reflects other versions of “Paul’s Database” available… each configuration option is associated with a modification of the pricing of the service image… two configurations are shown, each resulting in a different estimated cost to the customer… see [0036] the provider may submit an identifier of the service image to be used by the electronic service image marketplace, including a name) (Examiner notes that a pricing model table has been interpreted as a data structure comprising pricing models, see at least Golden [Fig. 5C]) (Examiner notes that a particular version of software has been interpreted as a pricing model for a software image);
obtaining the globally unique identifier for the selected public cloud marketplace listings ([0036] the provider may submit an identifier of the service image to be used by the electronic service image marketplace; [0046] display feature 544 reflects other versions of “Paul’s Database” available… each configuration option is associated with a modification of the pricing of the service image; [0049] Input box 606 enables the customer to select a version of the service image that is to be launched… see [Fig. 6] depicting identifying information for the selected service image, such as name 602 and pricing 612-618);
identifying a pricing model corresponding to the obtained globally unique identifier from the pricing model table ([0046][Fig. 5C] Fig. 5C depicts additional information regarding options available to customers for executing the displayed service image… display feature 544 reflects other versions of “Paul’s Database” available… each configuration option is associated with a modification of the pricing of the service image… two configurations are shown, each resulting in a different estimated cost to the customer; [0049] Input box 606 enables the customer to select a version of the service image that is to be launched; [0050][Fig. 6] With continued reference to FIG. 6, display feature 610 reflects pricing information associated with the currently selected configuration including a monthly subscription fee, hourly usage cost); and
in response to identifying the obtained globally unique identifier in the pricing model table, performing a boot sequence of the cloned software image with the identified pricing model ([0049] Input box 606 enables the customer to select a version of the service image that is to be launched; [0050] after configuring the parameters for launching an instance of the service image, the customer may activate input button 620 to subscribe to and launch the selected instance; [0052] after receiving the request to acquire access to the service image, the marketplace server 112 may transmit a command which causes launch of the service image on a hosted computing environment);
But does not explicitly disclose obtaining the globally unique identifier from the cloud metadata services.
Li, on the other hand, teaches a similar cloud marketplace in which software products are provided via software images and purchasable by customers ([0027][0040]), and additionally teaches the following:
obtaining the globally unique identifier from the cloud metadata services ([0041] a management platform 312 is a cloud-based platform through which a user has the ability to set up and deploy the software product on one or more compute instances… the management platform periodically downloads all versions of the software product, and for each version performs the verification process to verify whether the executable portion of the published cloud image represents an unaltered version of the original cloud image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Golden, obtaining the globally unique identifier from the cloud metadata services, as taught by Li, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Golden, to include the teachings of Li, in order to facilitate verification of an image file of a software product published to a marketplace of a cloud provider, as well as allow providers to modify image files such that they may still be used for verification (Li, [0001][0015]).
Regarding Claim 2, Golden and Li teach the limitations of claim 1.
Golden further discloses wherein the globally unique identifier is allocated for each public cloud marketplace identifier before the public cloud marketplace listing is created ([0036-0039] the provider may submit an identifier of the service image to be used by the electronic service image marketplace, including a name, as well as additional parameters, and the marketplace server 112 receives the submitted information and further submits it to the electronic catalog 116 of the marketplace).
Regarding Claim 3, Golden and Li teach the limitations of claim 1.
Golden further discloses wherein the globally unique identifier is a product code associated with a respective public cloud marketplace listing ([0036] the identifier provided by the provider may be the name displayed to customers of the electronic service image marketplace 100 when they view, browse, or search the electronic service image marketplace 100).
Regarding Claim 4, Golden and Li teach the limitations of claim 3.
Golden does not explicitly disclose wherein a common base image is used for each cloned software image such that cloning the software image cannot modify the product code.
Li, on the other hand, teaches wherein a common base image is used for each cloned software image such that cloning the software image cannot modify the product code ([0036] the original cloud image 210 includes a predetermined portion (non-executable portion) and an executable portion… the published cloud image 210 represents a copy of the cloud image 210 in which the non-executable portion has been altered by the cloud provider during publication to the marketplace; [0062] it is assumed that a cloud provider alters a predefined, non-executable portion 241 of a published image file during publication to a marketplace… as a result, the predefined, non-executable portion will differ from the predefined portion of the published image file, and verification will fail despite the content of the executable portions matching; [0063] the verification process is used to verify specifically whether the executable portion 242 of the published image file represents an unaltered version of the corresponding executable portion of the original image file… see [0047] in order to verify executable portions of published cloud images, the system maintains a mapping of each version of a software product for each cloud provider to corresponding signed digests, public certificates, and certificate chains for each version) (Examiner notes that the executable portion of the cloud images are not modified when a cloud image is published to the marketplace).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Golden, wherein a common base image is used for each cloned software image such that cloning the software image cannot modify the product code, as taught by Li, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 8 is directed to a computer program product. Claim 8 recites limitations that are substantially parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a method. The system of Golden/Li teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Golden further discloses A computer program product residing on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon which, when executed across one or more processors, causes at least a portion of the one or more processors to perform operations (Golden: [0021]). Claim 8 is therefore rejected for the reasons set forth above in claim 1 and in this paragraph.
Claim 9 recites a computer program product comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 2. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 2.
Claim 10 recites a computer program product comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 3. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 3.
Claim 11 recites a computer program product comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 4. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 4.
Claim 15 is directed to a computer program product. Claim 15 recites limitations that are substantially parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a method. The system of Golden/Li teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Golden further discloses A computing system including one or more processors and one or more memories configured to perform operations (Golden: [0021]). Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the reasons set forth above in claim 1 and in this paragraph.
Claim 16 recites a computing system comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 2. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 2.
Claim 17 recites a computing system comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 3. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 3.
Claim 18 recites a computing system comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 4. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 4.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golden in view of Li, and further in view of U.S Patent No. 10,817,929 B1 to Tyra et al., hereinafter Tyra.
Regarding Claim 5, Golden and Li teach the limitations of claim 1.
Golden does not explicitly disclose adjusting cloud-based application behavior using the pricing model by at least one of: reading a persisted value directly from the pricing model table; and sending a query to the cloud metadata service via an application programming interface (API).
Tyra, on the other hand, teaches adjusting cloud-based application behavior using the pricing model by at least one of ([Col 13 Ln 59-Col 14 Ln 27] the user interface enables a customer to review information regarding acquired service images, and includes control objects 416-426 provide the customer with management features used to control the service image) (Examiner notes that, according to the claim reciting “at least one of…”, only one of the subsequent limitations must be present in order to teach the claim):
reading a persisted value directly from the pricing model table; and
sending a query to the cloud metadata service via an application programming interface (API) ([Col 13 Ln 59-Col 14 Ln 27] the user interface enables a customer to review information regarding acquired service images, and includes control objects 416-426 provide the customer with management features used to control the service image; [Col 14 Ln 28-41] control objects include an “Upgrade” object, which may be used to upgrade the service image to a newer version; [Col 15 Ln 20-24] marketplace server 112 implements the uniform control interface for customers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Golden and Li, adjusting cloud-based application behavior using the pricing model by at least one of: reading a persisted value directly from the pricing model table; and sending a query to the cloud metadata service via an application programming interface (API), as taught by Tyra, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Golden and Li, to include the teachings of Tyra, in order to allow a host of a hosted computing environment to create, maintain, delete, or otherwise manage virtual machine instances in a dynamic manner, and provide virtual machine instances with specific functionalities through a marketplace (Tyra, [Col 1 Ln 32-Col 2 Ln 2]).
Claim 12 recites a computer program product comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 5. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 5.
Claim 19 recites a computing system comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 5. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 5.
Claims 6-7, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golden in view of Li, and further in view of U.S Patent No. 6,463,535 B1 to Drews, hereinafter Drews.
Regarding Claim 6, Golden and Li teach the limitations of claim 1.
Golden further discloses canceling a boot sequence ([0055] a hosted computing environment may be operable to load and unload instances of a service image as usage of the service image is needed, such as when an hourly fee is assessed for using the service image – a service may be made inactive, and the hourly fee would not be assessed during this period);
But does not explicitly disclose in response to not identifying a corresponding globally unique identifier, canceling a boot sequence.
Drews, on the other hand, teaches in response to not identifying a corresponding globally unique identifier, canceling a boot sequence ([Col 2 Ln 22-35] verification of the downloaded boot image confirms the integrity of the boot image (e.g., image has not been altered), and that the image is authorized to run on the local platform; [Col 5 Ln 46-60] the manifest digital signature is verified using the subject public key from the signed manifest… if the manifest digital signature does not verify properly, the verification function returns a FAILURE signal value that causes the network boot procedure to fail.. see [Col 4 Ln 31-44] a signed manifest 150 for a boot image includes (i) a secure hash value 300 for each sub—image of the boot image, (ii) a manifest digital signature, and (iii) a certificate chain 320 providing the identity of the signatory of the signed manifest).
Regarding Claim 7, Golden and Li teach the limitations of claim 1.
Golden further discloses wherein the one or pricing models are models ([0046][Fig. 5C]), canceling a boot sequence ([0055] a hosted computing environment may be operable to load and unload instances of a service image as usage of the service image is needed, such as when an hourly fee is assessed for using the service image – a service may be made inactive, and the hourly fee would not be assessed during this period);
But does not explicitly disclose in response to identifying an unaffiliated globally unique identifier that does not correspond to any of the one or more pricing models, canceling a boot sequence.
Li, on the other hand, discloses identifying an unaffiliated globally unique identifier that does not correspond to any of the one or more pricing models ([0065-0066] a published version of the software product in a form of the published image file is downloaded from the cloud provider marketplace, and a first digest is extracted from the signed digest (of the published software); [0067-0068] a second digest of the published image file is created, the second digest only including the executable portion, and the first and second digest are compared; [0071] verification is unsuccessful when it is confirmed that the executable portion of the published image file has been determined to represent an altered version of the executable portion of the original image file).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Golden, identifying an unaffiliated globally unique identifier that does not correspond to any of the one or more pricing models, as taught by Li, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Drews, on the other hand, teaches in response to not identifying a corresponding globally unique identifier, canceling a boot sequence ([Col 2 Ln 22-35] verification of the downloaded boot image confirms the integrity of the boot image (e.g., image has not been altered), and that the image is authorized to run on the local platform; [Col 5 Ln 46-60] the manifest digital signature is verified using the subject public key from the signed manifest… if the manifest digital signature does not verify properly, the verification function returns a FAILURE signal value that causes the network boot procedure to fail.. see [Col 4 Ln 31-44] a signed manifest 150 for a boot image includes (i) a secure hash value 300 for each sub—image of the boot image, (ii) a manifest digital signature, and (iii) a certificate chain 320 providing the identity of the signatory of the signed manifest).
Claim 13 recites a computer program product comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 6. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 6.
Claim 14 recites a computer program product comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 7. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 7.
Claim 20 recites a computing system comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 6. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S Patent Application No. 2021/0240799 A1 to Wong – implementing licensing and provisioning software products within a cloud based computing environment, where license definitions of software products, including software product features, are stored in a software application depot.
U.S Patent No. 10,261,782 to Suarez et al. – token-based authentication for container images obtained via a container marketplace, where the container images are verified before being launched.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY R DONAHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-5850. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-5p.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
/ZACHARY RYAN DONAHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 1/8/2026