DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to RCE filed on 08/14/2026, in which claims 1-4, and 6-21 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 16 are amended; claim 5 is cancelled.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 16, the claims includes amended limitation of “and generating by the control plane, a weblink to be included in the second platform, the weblink corresponding to a second solution listing for the one or more customers of the first reseller and being associated with the first solution listing”, which is not supported by the disclosure. The disclosure is completely silent with regard to term weblink. The specification does include multiple instance of using link in plurality of different embodiments, however it does not provide the details as claimed in the above limitation.
Regarding claim 21, the newly added claim recites “wherein the control plane generates the weblink in response to verifying whether a policy exists between the first platform and the second platform.” As mentioned above, the disclosure does not even disclose generating weblink, and claim 21 requires the link to be generated in response to verifying claimed policy.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected based on corresponding rejected base claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, and 6-21are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 15 of copending Application No. 18/468,024 in view of prior art rejection section below. Basically, all the limitations that are not disclosed by copending applications are obvious variant, and are rejected in similar fashion as dependent claims in prior art section.
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 1-4, and 6-21 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.
With respect to claim 1:
Step 1: The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process/method.
Step 2A, Prong One: The invention as claimed comprises:
A method, comprising:
using a first portion of cloud service provider (CSP)-provided infrastructure in a first region to provide one or more CSP-offered cloud services to one or more customers of the CSP;
creating a first virtual private label cloud (vPLC) for a first reseller based upon the CSP-provided infrastructure, wherein creating the first vPLC comprises allocating a second portion of the CSP-provided infrastructure in the first region to the first vPLC;
using the first vPLC to provide one or more first reseller-offered cloud services to one or more customers of the first reseller;
and creating, by a control plane of the CSP-provided infrastructure, a hierarchy of platforms for providing solution listings for the one or more customers of the CSP, the creating including;
creating, using the CSP-provided infrastructure, a first platform for providing a first solution listing to the one or more customers of the CSP; and
creating, using the first vPLC, a second platform, wherein the first platform is created independently of the second platform, and generating by the control plane, a weblink to be included in the second platform, the weblink corresponding to a second solution listing for the one or more customers of the first reseller and being associated with the first solution listing.
. The above step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
The claim presents offering cloud services at platforms to customers at high level, without claiming any technical features.
Step 2A Prong Two: The claim recites additional element of cloud service provider infrastructure, platform, applications, control plane and weblink.
The additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (computer), in instant case cloud resources and services; similarly, any machine hosting application or cloud based infrastructure can be a platform. Accordingly, the 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.
Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same conclusion is reached in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 11, and 16 present corresponding CRM and system claims corresponding to claim 1, and are rejected under same rational. In addition, claims 11, and 16 further recite additional limitations of non-transitory computer readable medium, processor, and memory.
Step 2A Prong Two: The additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (computer). Accordingly, the additional elements alone or in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same conclusion is reached in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-15, and 17-21, further narrow the recited abstract idea above, and are rejected under same rational as claim 1. Regarding publishing solution listings associated with platform, it is nothing more than advertising the available services to customers.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7-8, 11, 15-16, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cidon et al. (US 20190104035 A1) in view of Nedeltchev et al. (US 20180025399 A1)
With respect to claims 1, 11, and 16:
Cidon teaches:
A method, comprising (see, claim 1):
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (see, para 0326):
A system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to (see, claim 1):
using a first portion of cloud service provider (CSP)-provided infrastructure in a first region to provide one or more CSP-offered cloud services to one or more customers of the CSP (para 0010, 0012, 0056, Fig. 22);
creating a first virtual private label cloud (vPLC) for a first reseller based upon the CSP-provided infrastructure (para 0056, 0274, 0276, Fig. 22; here second cloud SaaS layer deploys virtual network for reseller.), wherein creating the first vPLC comprises allocating a second portion of the CSP-provided infrastructure in the first region to the first vPLC (para 0276-0277, Fig. 22; Abstract teaches cloud providers in several regions; also see para 0006); using the first vPLC to provide one or more first reseller-offered cloud services to one or more customers of the first reseller (para 0276, 0277, Fig. 22); and creating, by a control plane of the CSP-provided infrastructure, a hierarchy of platforms for providing solution listings for the one or more customers of the CSP (Para 0274“Other embodiments use other deployment models to deploy single or multi-tenant virtual networks over the network and compute infrastructure of two or more public cloud providers. For instance, in some embodiments, the virtual network provider allows one or more cloud service resellers to deploy single or multi-tenant virtual networks for one or more of their customers. FIG. 22 illustrates this deployment model. As shown, this deployment model uses three levels of SaaS providers 2205-2215 that provide three sets of SaaS services.” Note: Fig. 22 shows that first SaaS layer is provider by cloud providers 2220, and cloud reseller 2230 provides SaaS Layer to customers 2240, thus a hierarchy between customers, reseller, and providers), the creating including:
creating, using the CSP-provided infrastructure, a first platform for providing a first solution listing to the one or more customers of the CSP (para 0012, 0274-0286, Fig. 1C, Fig. 17, Fig. 20, Fig. 22; in Fig. 22 CSP provided infrastructure (2250) is used to provide solution listings to customers (resellers).); creating, using the first vPLC, a second platform (Fig. 22 teaches customer machines from reseller. Para “[0275] The first SaaS layer 2205 is provided by one or more public cloud providers 2220 that provide compute and network infrastructure (e.g., compute elements (such as host computers, VMs and/or containers) and network elements (hardware or software switches, routers, middlebox elements, etc.) that connect the compute elements) in multiple different public clouds 2250. The second SaaS layer 2210 is provided by the VNP 2225, which provides the tools for deploying virtual networks across multiple public clouds 2250 for a cloud reseller. The cloud reseller 2230 provides the third SaaS layer 2215 to its customers 2240, which use the cloud resellers tools to define compute elements and network infrastructure (e.g., virtual network) to deploy across one or more public clouds 2250.”), wherein the first platform is created independently of the second platform (See, Fig. 1B, para 0011-0012, Fig. 22); and generating by the control plane, a weblink to be included in the second platform, the weblink corresponding to a second solution listing for the one or more customers of the first reseller and being associated with the first solution listing (Para 0276, “[0276] The cloud reseller 2230 in some embodiments has its own customer account with each of the public cloud providers. In some embodiments, the cloud reseller establishes its customer account with each public cloud provider directly (as identified by dashed arc 2252) and then provides security credentials for this customer account to the VNP provider 2225. In other embodiments, the cloud reseller establishes its public cloud customer account through the VNP provider's machines 2225. To direct the VNP to deploy a virtual network for one of its tenants over public cloud infrastructure, the cloud reseller machines 2230 initially provide the cloud reseller's VNP security credentials (e.g., username, password, certificate, etc.) to the VNP machines 2225 in order to authenticate the cloud reseller.” Note: here customer have access to reseller solutions, and reseller have access to cloud provider solution; the second solution listing is associated with first solution listing, as reseller is deploying networks from the resources they have (see para 0274).).
However, Cidon doesn’t explicitly teaches weblink corresponding to solution listings.
Nedeltchev teaches weblink corresponding to solution listings (Para 0044, “The descriptive text can include an identifier 306 identifying each of one or more resource providers, or pool of resource providers, offering the service. Each resource provider identifier 306 is hyperlinked (as indicated by underlining in the figure) to a profile of the resource provider in the social network 125. Each resource provider identifier 306 includes an indication of the rating or ranking of the resource provider supporting the service. Selecting the hyperlinked identifier 306 will cause the user's computing device 130 to navigate to the profile page for the resource provider in the social network 125, where details of the rating/ranking are available, along with other information about the resource provider, and the services supported by the resource provider's resources 110.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement weblink as taught by Nedeltchev into Cidon.
One would be motivated to do so to provide information related to services supported by the provider. (para 0044)
Note: though claim 16 recites terms “use”, “create”, etc. rather than “using”, “creating”, etc.… as in claim 1, the limitations of all independent claims are substantially same.
With respect to claims 7, and 15:
Cidon as modified by Nedeltchev teaches:
The method of claim 1, and the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the second solution listing is uniquely identified by a resource ID and a tenancy ID associated with the tenancy of the first reseller (para 0080, 0084, 0142, 0181, 0197, 0231, 0277, 0289)
With respect to claims 8, and 19:
Cidon as modified by Nedeltchev teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: The system of claim 16, wherein the system is further caused to: creating a second vPLC for a second reseller based upon the CSP-provided infrastructure (para 0274-0276, Fig. 22), wherein creating the second vPLC comprises allocating a third portion of the CSP-provided infrastructure to the second vPLC (para 0010, 0274-0276, Fig. 22); using the second vPLC to provide one or more second reseller-offered cloud services to one or more customers of the second reseller (para 0274-0276, Fig. 22); and creating, using the second vPLC, a third platform for providing a third solution listing to the one or more customers of the second reseller (para 0012, para 0274 teaches resellers; under BRI platform can be any place that offers the services, Saas providers, resellers etc.. all can be first, second, third… platforms; for explicit teaching, please see Akkiraju as cited with regard to claim 2 that teaches multiple platforms, and publishing solution listing that can be viewed by users.)
With respect to claim 21:
Cidon as modified by Nedeltchev teaches the method of claim 1.
Nedeltchev further teaches wherein the control plane generates the weblink in response to verifying whether a policy exists between the first platform and the second platform (Para 0017 teaches that “Orchestration can include: registering (using both the crowd-sourced cloud provider computing systems and the agents) at least one resource of a resource provider with the crowd-sourced cloud provider computing system; validating the registered resources as being available for provisioning to meet service requests from crowd-sourced cloud tenants; publishing each registered service as available to consumers (potential tenants); receiving a request for crowd-sourced cloud services by the cloud provider computing system; provisioning the requested services; and operating each provisioned service.” Note: here only registered resources are published, thus link that shares published services is only generated when the resources between platforms (crowd source providers) are registered.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement weblink as taught by Nedeltchev into Cidon.
One would be motivated to do so to provide information related to services supported by the provider. (para 0044)
Claims 2-4, 6, 9-10, 12-14, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cidon as modified by Nedeltchev in view of Akkiraju et al. (US 20170069011 A1)
With respect to claim 2:
Cidon as modified by Nedeltchev does not explicitly teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: publishing the first solution listing by a publisher associated with the first platform; and publishing the second solution listing by a publisher associated with the second platform.
Akkiraju teaches publishing the first solution listing by a publisher associated with the first platform; and publishing the second solution listing by a publisher associated with the second platform (See, para 0048; the services are published at each platform; see para 0052 for list of services; Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement offered solution listings publication as taught by Akkiraju into Cidon as modified by Nedeltchev.
One would be motivated to do so to provide suggestion of platforms that offer the required cloud services. (para 0001)
With respect to claims 3:
Akkiraju further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein publishing the first solution listing by the publisher associated with the first platform is performed independent of publishing the second solution listing by the publisher associated with the second platform (See, para 0012, 0033).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement offered solution listings publication as taught by Akkiraju into Cidon as modified by Nedeltchev.
One would be motivated to do so to provide suggestion of platforms that offer the required cloud services. (para 0001)
With respect to claim 4:
Akkiraju further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the publisher associated with the first platform are the same as the publisher associated with the second platform (Para 0012 teaches single publication meeting the requirement of each platform).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement offered solution listings publication as taught by Akkiraju into Cidon as modified by Nedeltchev.
One would be motivated to do so to provide suggestion of platforms that offer the required cloud services. (para 0001)
With respect to claim 6:
Cidon as modified by Nedeltchev does not explicitly teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first solution listing and the second solution listing are viewable on the second platform.
Akkiraju further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first solution listing and the second solution listing are viewable on the second platform (para 0041 teaches publishing same cloud service (solution listing) on multiple platforms, thus first solution listing and second solution listing is viewable on second platform; similar to claim 5, if same offer can be first and second listing, then both of them are viewable; para 0039 teaches “client program 112 collates information across multiple platforms and presents the information to the user.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement offered solution listings publication as taught by Akkiraju into Cidon as modified by Nedeltchev.
One would be motivated to do so to provide suggestion of platforms that offer the required cloud services. (para 0001)
Note: claims 2-6 are merely user business choices, technically once person of ordinary skill in the art knows how to publish the list on one platform, it can be done in any combination of offers at any platform.
With respect to claims 9, and 20:
Cidon as modified by Nedeltchev does not explicitly teaches:
The method of claim 8 further comprising: and the system of claim 19, wherein the system is further caused to: publishing the third solution listing by a publisher associated with the third platform; and wherein the publisher associated with the second platform are the same as the publisher associated with the third platform.
Akkiraju teaches the method of claim 8 further comprising: and the system of claim 19, wherein the system is further caused to: publishing the third solution listing by a publisher associated with the third platform; and wherein the publisher associated with the second platform are the same as the publisher associated with the third platform (Para 0012 teaches single publication meeting the requirement of each platform).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement offered solution listings publication as taught by Akkiraju into Cidon as modified by Nedeltchev.
One would be motivated to do so to provide suggestion of platforms that offer the required cloud services. (para 0001)
With respect to claim 10:
Cidon as modified by Nedeltchev does not explicitly teaches:
The method of claim 8, wherein the second solution listing on the second platform is a republication of the first solution listing on the first platform, and the third solution listing on the third platform is a republication of the first solution listing on the first platform.
Akkiraju teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the second solution listing on the second platform is a republication of the first solution listing on the first platform (para 0012 single submission, and publication on multiple platforms; para 0041 teaches publishing same cloud service (solution listing) on multiple platforms, thus same service is republished on multiple platforms.), and the third solution listing on the third platform is a republication of the first solution listing on the first platform (para 0012 single submission, and publication on multiple platforms; para 0041 teaches publishing same cloud service (solution listing) on multiple platforms, thus same service is republished on multiple platforms.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement offered solution listings publication as taught by Akkiraju into Cidon as modified by Nedeltchev.
One would be motivated to do so to provide suggestion of platforms that offer the required cloud services. (para 0001)
With respect to claims 12, and 17:
Cidon as modified by Nedeltchev does not explicitly teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, and the system of claim 16, wherein the system is further caused to: further comprising: publishing the first solution listing by a publisher associated with the first platform; and publishing the second solution listing by a publisher associated with the second platform; wherein publishing the first solution listing by the publisher associated with the first platform is performed independent of publishing the second solution listing by the publisher associated with the second platform.
Akkiraju teaches further comprising: publishing the first solution listing by a publisher associated with the first platform; and publishing the second solution listing by a publisher associated with the second platform (See, para 0048; the services are published at each platform; see para 0052 for list of services; Fig. 1); wherein publishing the first solution listing by the publisher associated with the first platform is performed independent of publishing the second solution listing by the publisher associated with the second platform (See, para 0012, 0033)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement offered solution listings publication as taught by Akkiraju into Cidon as modified by Nedeltchev.
One would be motivated to do so to provide suggestion of platforms that offer the required cloud services. (para 0001)
With respect to claim 13:
Akkiraju further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the publisher associated with the first platform are the same as the publisher associated with the second platform (Para 0012 teaches single publication meeting the requirement of each platform).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement offered solution listings publication as taught by Akkiraju into Cidon as modified by Nedeltchev.
One would be motivated to do so to provide suggestion of platforms that offer the required cloud services. (para 0001)
With respect to claims 14 and 18:
Cidon as modified by Nedeltchev does not explicitly teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, and the system of claim 16, wherein the second solution listing on the second platform is a republication of the first solution listing on the first platform, and the first solution listing and the second solution listing are viewable on the second platform.
Akkiraju further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, and the system of claim 16, wherein the second solution listing on the second platform is a republication of the first solution listing on the first platform (para 0012 single submission, and publication on multiple platforms; para 0041 teaches publishing same cloud service (solution listing) on multiple platforms, thus same service is republished on multiple platforms.), and the first solution listing and the second solution listing are viewable on the second platform (para 0041 teaches publishing same cloud service (solution listing) on multiple platforms, thus first solution listing and second solution listing is viewable on second platform; similar to claim 5, if same offer can be first and second listing, then both of them are viewable; para 0039 teaches “client program 112 collates information across multiple platforms and presents the information to the user.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to implement offered solution listings publication as taught by Akkiraju into Cidon as modified by Nedeltchev.
One would be motivated to do so to provide suggestion of platforms that offer the required cloud services. (para 0001)
Response to Arguments
With regard to 35 U.S.C 101, applicant's arguments filed on 08/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “here, the Examiner improperly abstracts Applicant's detailed claims to an observation, evaluation, and making predictions in an attempt to fit the claims to an abstract idea. Specifically, the Office Action asserts that the claimed features of the present invention relate to a process that can be performed by the human mind. However, by doing so, the Examiner describes the claims at an improperly high level of abstraction, untethered from the language of the claims. For example, at least the limitations of " "(i) create, by a control plane of the CSP- provided infrastructure, a hierarchy of platforms for providing solution listings for the one or more customers of the CSP by and (ii) generate by the control plane, a weblink to be included in the second platform, the weblink corresponding to a second solution listing for the one or more customers of the first reseller and being associated with the first solution listing", are steps that cannot be performed completely in a mental manner.” (Pg. 9-10)
Office action states “the above step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The claim presents offering cloud services at platforms to customers at high level, without claiming any technical features.”
As can be seen, the examiner have used the “organizing human activity grouping” that includes “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).” In addition, the use of weblink to access information is well establish technology, and also providing information in hierarchical manner is abstract idea itself.
Applicant argues, “Similarly, here, embodiments of the invention solve problems associated with providing services to one or more customers in a cloud environment. A technical problem to be solved is how to generate a digital platform which will provide different types of services to different customers in a seamless manner.”
The above statement is so broad, and does not point out a particular problem, and more importantly solution to the problem. The entire purpose of cloud services is to provide different types of services to different customers in seamless manner, for example see Amazon Web Services.
Applicant argues, “In the claimed invention, the vPLC segmented model offers some advantages, such as physical separation of the individual portions of the datacenter i.e., CSP provided infrastructure, and a shared common control plane e.g. control plane 1250 of FIG. 12 that the CSP operates for all the portions. Thus, the claimed invention provides a framework to seamlessly provide solution listings in a cloud based infrastructure. Accordingly, the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem, and the claims are consequently not abstract.” (pg. 10-11)
Based on the above remarks, it seems the technical improvement is “physical separation of the individual portions of the datacenter.” This seems more like a user design choice, rather than improvement; what technical field is being improved? The datacenter does not have all the resource, in single box; it contains multiple racks, which contain multiple blades; the blades host different applications; one can assign any blade/resources for any purposes, for any customer. Furthermore, we have datacenters worldwide, physically separated. The above statement does not present any technical detail, or how the separation of individual portions is achieved; rather provides a generic statement, which under broadest reasonable interpretation reads on any cloud resource management.
Applicant argues, “Here, is it clear that the claims involve more than performance of "well understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." For instance, it is not common practice to create a hierarchy of platforms for providing solution listings in a cloud based setting.” (Pg. 12)
The aspect of creating hierarchy is abstract idea itself, as this is organizing human activity. This aspect applies everywhere, where buyer, further sells the goods; there is hierarchy, where customer buys from distributor, and distributor buys from the provider. This concept is no is no different when providing platform resources, or managing resources.
With regard to prior art, applicant's arguments filed on 08/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “as an initial matter, Applicant respectfully submit that the Action alleges that tenancy as described by Cidon corresponds to the claimed first platform and second platform. Applicant respectfully submit that tenancy as described Cidon corresponds to an account of a customer which is accessible by all users belonging to a particular tenancy. In contrast, in the claimed invention, the first platform and second platform correspond to digital platforms providing services that are accessible by all customer tenancies of the system.” (Pg. 12-13)
The examiner in OA, mailed on 04/22/2026, Pg. 9 states “para 0012, 0274- 0286, Fig. 1C, Fig. 17, Fig. 20; here the first platform can be Tenant 1 (para 0012 teaches virtual network of the tenant, thus a platform); also, under BRI reseller can also be interpreted as platform (Fig. 22); para 0116 teaches list of the most popular SaaS providers and consumer web destinations.” Over here, it is very clear that each of these accounts have particular platforms associated with it. To further clarify, the examiner have mapped the claimed language with regard to Fig. 22 (which was also cited previously), where cloud resources 2250, can be provided to reseller by SaaS provider (thus reseller has first platform), and then the reseller can provide cloud resources to customers from their resources (second platform). Here, the cloud resources that provide services are being interpreted to be platform, not merely the admirative accounts of tenant.
Regarding remaining arguments, the applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, and 6-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230328003 A1: “[0002] In some implementations, a customer may desire to deploy services across multiple cloud service providers. However, managing the services across the different cloud service providers can be difficult, cumbersome, and expensive. Additionally, migration of services can be difficult or impossible as a central management organization or service is unavailable to initiate the migration of the services from one cloud service provider to another or manage the billing requirements associated each seller of record for the various services. Further, current cloud service providers or sellers of record for the cloud service providers may incentivize customers through volume discounts or long-term commitments, creating a barrier for the customer to switch between cloud service providers.”
US 20200244549 A1: “[0002] Data centers can also include virtual machines (VMs), which include emulations of a computer system that can be customized to include a predefined amount of random access memory (RAM), hard drive storage space, as well as other computing resources that emulate a physical machine. Operating a data center can involve maintaining hundreds to thousands of CPUs, GPUs, and other physical hardware, as well as corresponding software. Some virtualization platforms include a console that permits administrators to maintain virtualization services. However, adding new virtualization services or integrating existing virtualization services with third-party applications and services remains problematic and is complicated, even for trained information technology (IT) professionals.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WASEEM ASHRAF whose telephone number is (571)270-3948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 09:30 A.M-06:00 P.M.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at 571-272-5350. 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.
/WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights