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 4/10/2026 have been considered.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 7-9 that the amended claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea because the amended independent claims improve the functioning of a public cloud marketplace, with reference to ([002-005]) of Applicant’s specification. Applicant further argues that the claimed process overcomes technical issues by using a common base image for each software image. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive. As claimed, the additional elements of the amended limitations, both individually and in combination, represent the mere use of generic computing components to facilitate the abstract idea, and do not recite a technical improvement.
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional function of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary sill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Furthermore, if the specification does provide support for a technical improvement, the claims must reflect said improvement. (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)). Currently, the claims are recited at a high level, and do not contain sufficient technical implementation details such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would determine that an improvement to technology is apparent.
While the specification may recite a technical problem, a technical solution to said technical problem is not described such that one of ordinary skill in the art would ascertain an improvement to technology. Similarly, the claims do not recite a technical solution to a technical problem. Applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient detail with respect to improvements to the functioning of the claimed technology, and is specific only in its use in facilitating the abstract idea of receiving and fulfilling a selection of a listing according to a pricing model. While Applicant argues that the amended claims improve the functioning of a cloud marketplace by ensuring there will only be one software image to build, one image to qualify, and only one image to run security scans against, the specification as filed does not reveal to one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant has provided an improvement to the claimed technology. Nor does the specification provide technical detail regarding an improvement to the functioning of a computing component of the public cloud marketplace or another technical area. Applicant’s cited portions of the specification (see at least [003-005]) further describe problems associated with building multiple images of a product for each cloud marketplace listing, but do not reflect a technical solution or improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology as would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, according to the limitations of claim 1. It is further noted that the specification (see at least [002]) describes problems with enterprise products, including the requirement to create and maintain multiple marketplace listings to support different pricing models, indicating that the claimed invention is directed to improving the abstract idea, rather than the claimed technology. With regards to Applicant’s arguments regarding paragraph ([0073]) of the specification, it is noted that, while the specification discloses that the public cloud guarantees that cloning of the software image will not change or remove the product code, it does not provide a sufficient technical explanation such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain that a technical improvement is apparent. Similarly, the claim does not provide any detail with regards to technical implementations of the claimed “receiving…; obtaining…; identifying…; and “performing…” steps, such that an improvement to the claimed technology or another technical area is apparent. For example, while the claim recites that a common base image is used for each cloned software image, it does not recite technical implementation details explaining how the common base image is used. Accordingly, the amended claims, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are rendered moot under new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues on pages 9-13 that the amended claim 1 overcomes the previously cited combination of Golden and Li, in light of the amendments to the claims. This argument has been considered but is rendered moot under new grounds of rejection. Regarding Independent claims 1, 8, and 15, the amendments to the claims have altered the scope of the claimed invention, such that newly cited Cruz (US 10,379,894 B1) is currently relied upon as the primary reference, in view of previously cited Golden (US 2019/0228445 A1), in the rejections of the independent claims. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are rendered moot under new grounds of rejection, and the rejection has been maintained.
With regards to Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-12 that Golden does not describe service images “as clones of a base image and do not include a pricing model table and a globally unique identifier as claimed in Claim 1”, this argument has been considered and is not persuasive. It is noted that Golden has been maintained as teaching a pricing model table that lists pricing models and an identifier for each pricing model listed therein (See at least Golden [Fig. 5C][0046] “display feature 542/544 depicting options… associated with a modification of the pricing of the service image”, [Fig. 5C] further depicts the pricing model table an associated pricing options). Newly cited Cruz has been further relied upon to teach the remaining limitations cited by Applicant, including cloned software images, and wherein a common base image is used for each cloned software image, as discussed below. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive, and the rejection has been maintained.
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:
receiving 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 includes a pricing model table that lists one or more pricing models and an associated globally unique identifier for each pricing model listed 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 obtained globally unique identifier in the pricing model table, performing a sequence with the identified pricing model.
Claims 8 and 15 recite the same limitations believed to be abstract as recited in claim 1.
Claim 1, 8, and 15 recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The MPEP defines the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping as including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The abstract ideas recited in representative claims 1, 8, and 15 are certain methods of organizing human activity because receiving a selection of a public marketplace listing including a globally unique identifier and performing a sequence with an identified pricing model from a pricing model table is a commercial or legal interaction because it is an advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Claims 8 and 15 recite the same abstract idea as recited in claim 1.
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 Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A computer-implemented method for integrating one or more public cloud marketplace listings with cloud metadata services, comprising:
receiving a selection of a public cloud marketplace listing for a cloud-based application from the one or more public cloud marketplace listings, wherein each public cloud marketplace listing includes a globally unique identifier and a cloned software image, a common base image is used for each cloned software image, and each cloned software image includes a pricing model table that lists one or more pricing models and an associated globally unique identifier for each pricing model listed therein;
obtaining the globally unique identifier for the selected public cloud marketplace listing from the cloud metadata services;
identifying a pricing model corresponding to the obtained globally unique identifier from the pricing model table; 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.
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 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, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Returning to representative claims 1, 8, and 15, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. 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 16-20, 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 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18, 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 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 5-7, 12-14, and 19-20, 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:
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 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, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over newly cited Cruz Oliveira Queiros et al. (US 10,379,894 B1), hereinafter Cruz, in view of previously cited Golden (US 2019/0228445 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Cruz discloses A computer-implemented method for integrating one or more public cloud marketplace listings with cloud metadata services, comprising ([Fig. 7][Col 11 Ln 60-Col 12 Ln 15]; see [Col 4 Ln 22-35] The provider network 100 may include multiple host computers 110; [Col 5 Ln 1-28] The provider network 100 implements various cloud-related services that can be purchased by customers of the service provider… for example virtual machines… the virtual machine manager implements a user interface service usable to launch virtual machines; [Col 12 Ln 48-62] the virtual machine manager validates signatures of the target machine image and the manifest for the target image… and causes the manifest from the access data structure 130 to be transmitted to the host computer):
receiving a selection of a public cloud marketplace listing for a cloud-based application from the one or more public cloud marketplace listings, wherein each public cloud marketplace listing includes a globally unique identifier and a cloned software image ([Col 11 Ln 60-Col 12 Ln 15] a customer may interact with a user device 170 to request the launch of a virtual machine using a particular machine image; see; [Col 6 Ln 11-56] a machine image may be derived from a parent machine image… the customer may modify the [parent] virtual machine… and save the modified virtual machine so that the newly created offspring machine image can be used to launch virtual machines from that point forward… a manifest is created for all machine images… including an identifier of each software component contained within the machine image; [Col 9 Ln 1-6] Machine image manifests are created and saved… and used to validate the machine image when a customer wants to launch an instance using that machine image; see [Col 5 Ln 1-28] customers may purchase cloud services via an API request) (Note: a manifest for a machine image includes identifiers for each software component of the machine image, which reasonably reads on a globally unique identifier),
a common base image is used for each cloned software image ([Col 6 Ln 11-24] a machine image may be derived from a parent machine image; [Col 2 Ln 60-67] each machine image is mapped to a manifest which specifies those modifications that were made to a virtual machine launched from a parent machine image to create the offspring machine image), and
each cloned software image includes one or more pricing models and an associated globally unique identifier ([Col 5 Ln 29-43] parameters used to create the virtual machines include… a pricing option for the virtual machines (to the extent that service provider offers varying pricing options to its customers); see [Col 2 Ln 60-67] each machine image is mapped to a manifest which specifies those modifications that were made to a virtual machine launched from a parent machine image to create the offspring machine image);
obtaining the globally unique identifier for the selected public cloud marketplace listing from the cloud metadata services ([Col 12 Ln 48-62] the virtual machine manager 120 causes the manifest from the access data structure 130 to be transmitted to the host computer; see [Col 6 Ln 11-56] a manifest includes an identifier of each software component contained within the machine image);
identifying the obtained globally unique identifier ([Col 12 Ln 63-Col 13 Ln 18] the virtual machine validation agent 114 in the host computer accesses its local copy of the manifest to obtain a list of the software agents and configurations contained in the manifest (i.e., the modifications that were made to the target machine image's immediate parent to create the target machine image); [Col 13 Ln 54-67] the virtual machine manager 120 may access the access control data structure 130 to obtain the identities of the various software agents in the target and ancestor machine images); and
in response to identifying the obtained globally unique identifier, performing a boot sequence of the cloned software image ([Col 12 Ln 63-Col 14 Ln 2] the virtual machine manager 120 may access the access control data structure 130 to obtain the identities of the various software agents in the target and ancestor machine images, and then directly access the corresponding machine images from the machine image storage 125 to compute the integrity metrics. If the integrity metrics are successfully validated, the target machine image may be transmitted to a host computer for the virtual machine to be launched).
Cruz discloses wherein each cloned software image includes one or more pricing models and an associated globally unique identifier (see at least [Col 2 Ln 60-67][Col 5 Ln 29-43]). Cruz further discloses obtaining the globally unique identifier from the cloud metadata services (see at least [Col 6 Ln 11-56][Col 12 Ln 48-62]), identifying the obtained globally unique identifier, and performing a boot sequence of the cloned software image in response to identifying the obtained globally unique identifier (see at least [Col 12 Ln 63-Col 14 Ln 2]). Cruz further discloses wherein an identifier is a globally unique identifier (see at least [Col 12 Ln 63-Col 14 Ln 2]). However, Cruz does not explicitly teach a pricing model table that lists pricing models and an identifier for each pricing model listed therein; identifying a pricing model corresponding to the identifier from the pricing model table; and performing a boot with the identified pricing model.
However, in the field of providing a marketplace for acquisition of service images according to pricing and usage (see at least Golden [abstract]), Golden, on the other hand, teaches a pricing model table that lists pricing models and an identifier for each pricing model listed therein ([Fig. 5C][0046] display feature 542/544 depicting information regarding options available to customers for executing the displayed service image and sample configurations… each option is associated with a modification of the pricing of the service image, and further depicts an identifier (e.g., “Hosted Web Services Catalog – US (WEST)”));
identifying a pricing model corresponding to the identifier from the pricing model table ([Fig. 6]; the depicted user interface 600 may be displayed by selecting the input button 532 of Fig. 5A; [0049] input box enables the customer to select a version of the service image that is to be launched. Multiple versions of the same service image may be provided for various reasons, such as cost… the selected hosting environment may be “Hosted Web Services Catalog – US (WEST)”; see [Fig. 5C] depicting “Hosted Web Services Catalog – US (WEST) as a pricing option); and
performing a boot with the identified pricing model ([Fig. 6]; [0049-0052] the customer selects a version of the service image that is to be launched… and activate input button 620 to subscribe to and launch the selected instance… the marketplace server 112 may transmit a command which causes launch of the service image on a hosted computed environment).
The steps of Golden are applicable to the method of Cruz, as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to the provision of software images with varying pricing options to customers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the software image provision method as taught by Cruz, to include a pricing model table that lists pricing models and an identifier for each pricing model listed therein; identifying a pricing model corresponding to the identifier from the pricing model table; and performing a boot with the identified pricing model, as taught by Golden. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the software provision method of Cruz in order to enable virtual machines to provide different desired functionalities more efficiently, as well as allow customers to view alternative versions of a selected service image that are available, where previous versions have different characteristics (e.g., price, features, compatibility, ratings) (Golden, [0004-0005][0042]).
Regarding Claim 2, Cruz in view of Golden teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Cruz further discloses wherein the globally unique identifier is allocated for each public cloud marketplace identifier ([Col 6 Ln 11-56] a manifest is created for all machine images… a manifest includes an identifier of each software component contained within the machine image). However, Cruz does not explicitly teach allocating the identifier before the public cloud marketplace listing is created.
Golden, on the other hand, teaches allocating the 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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the software image provision method as taught by Cruz, to include allocating the identifier before the public cloud marketplace listing is created, as taught by Golden, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Cruz in view of Golden teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Cruz further discloses wherein the globally unique identifier is a code ([Col 6 Ln 11-56] a manifest is created for all machine images… including an identifier of each software component contained within the machine image). However, Cruz does not explicitly teach wherein a code is a product code associated with a respective public cloud marketplace listing.
Golden, on the other hand, teaches wherein a code 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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the software image provision method as taught by Cruz, to include wherein a code is a product code associated with a respective public cloud marketplace listing, as taught by Golden, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Cruz in view of Golden teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Cruz further discloses wherein cloning the software image does not modify the code ([Col 6 Ln 57-Col 7 Ln 3] The first generation machine image 210 is a modified version of the base machine image 200… the first generation machine image 210 includes both the “A” software components and configuration parameters from the base machine image 200 as well the “B” additional software components and/or configuration parameters not included in the base machine image 200; [Col 7 Ln 16-28] The second generation machine image 220 is a modified version of the first generation machine image 210… and includes the various software components comprising “A” and “B” from the first generation image but may also include one or more additional software components collectively represented as “C,”; [Col 3 Ln 61-Col 4 Ln 21] Additional validation checks may be made of the target machine image to confirm that, other than the modifications listed in the manifest of the target machine image, the target machine image is otherwise identical to its parent machine image) (Note: The components of the parent image are maintained in the machine image of the following generation, and are accordingly not modified). However, Cruz does not explicitly teach wherein the code is the product code.
Golden, on the other hand, teaches wherein the code is the product code ([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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the software image provision method as taught by Cruz, to include wherein the code is the product code, as taught by Golden, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, Cruz in view of Golden teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Cruz further discloses in response to not identifying a corresponding globally unique identifier, canceling a boot sequence ([Col 12 Ln 48-62] the virtual machine manager 120 validates the signatures of the target machine image and the manifest for the target machine image. If a signature is not validated, then the launch process may be aborted; see [Col 6 Ln 11-56] a manifest includes an identifier of each software component contained within the machine image).
Regarding Claim 7, Cruz in view of Golden teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Cruz further discloses 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 ([Col 12 Ln 63-Col 13 Ln 17] the virtual machine validation agent 114 determines whether the newly computed integrity metrics match those in the manifest. If any integrity metrics do not match, then at 376 the launch process may be aborted).
Claim 8 is directed to a manufacture. The claim discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1, except claim 1 is directed to a process while claim 8 is directed to a manufacture. The added element of 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 is taught by Cruz (Cruz: [Fig. 8][Col 14 Ln 37-50]). Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for the same rationale over the prior art cited in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites a computer program product comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 2. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 2, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, Claim 9 is rejected for the same rationale over the prior art cited in claim 2.
Claim 10 recites a computer program product comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 3. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 3, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, Claim 10 is rejected for the same rationale over the prior art cited in claim 3.
Claim 11 recites a computer program product comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 4. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 4, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected for the same rationale over the prior art cited in claim 4.
Claim 13 recites a computer program product comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 6. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 6, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected for the same rationale over the prior art cited in claim 6.
Claim 14 recites a computer program product comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 7. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 7, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale over the prior art cited in claim 7.
Claim 15 is directed to a machine. The claim discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1, except claim 1 is directed to a process while claim 15 is directed to a machine. The added element of A computing system including one or more processors and one or more memories configured to perform operations is taught by Cruz (Cruz: [Fig. 8][Col 14 Ln 15-36]). Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same rationale over the prior art cited in claim 1.
Claim 16 recites a computing system comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 2. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 2, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected for the same rationale over the prior art cited in claim 2.
Claim 17 recites a computing system comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 3. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 3, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected for the same rationale over the prior art cited in claim 3.
Claim 18 recites a computing system comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 4. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 4, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected for the same rationale over the prior art cited in claim 4.
Claim 20 recites a computing system comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 6. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 6, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale over the prior art cited in claim 6.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruz in view of Golden, and further in view of previously cited Tyra (US 10,817,929 B1).
Regarding Claim 5, Cruz in view of Golden teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Cruz further discloses performing cloud-based application behavior using the pricing model by at least one of ([Col 9 Ln 27-57] A customer may interact with a user device 170 to request the launch of a virtual machine using a particular machine image; see [Col 5 Ln 29-43] parameters used to create the virtual machines include… a pricing option for the virtual machines (to the extent that service provider offers varying pricing options to its customers)):
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 9 Ln 27-57] A customer may interact with a user device 170 to request the launch of a virtual machine using a particular machine image… the customer submits a request to an API to launch the virtual machine… the virtual machine manager 120 may respond to the API request by causing the target machine image to be loaded onto a host computer 110).
Cruz discloses performing 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) (see at least [Col 5 Ln 29-43][Col 9 Ln 27-57]). However, Cruz in view of Golden does not explicitly teach adjusting cloud-based application behavior.
However, in the field of providing service images for purchase to users (see at least Tyra [abstract]), Tyra, on the other hand, teaches adjusting cloud-based application behavior ([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).
The steps of Tyra are applicable to the method of Cruz in view of Golden, as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to the provision of software images with varying pricing options to customers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the software image provision method as taught by Cruz in view of Golden, to include a pricing model table that lists pricing models and an identifier for each pricing model listed therein; identifying a pricing model corresponding to the identifier from the pricing model table; and performing a boot with the identified pricing model, as taught by Tyra. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the software provision method of Cruz in view of Golden 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 14 recites a computer program product comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 5. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 5, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale over the prior art cited in claim 5.
Claim 19 recites a computing system comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 5. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 5, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, Claim 19 is rejected for the same rationale over the prior art cited in claim 5.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights