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
This action is in response to remarks received 08/07/2026.
This application 18/468,047 claims earliest priority from provisional application 63407571, filed 09/16/2022.
Claims 1, 10 and 16 have been amended, claim 5 previously canceled.
Claims 1, 10 and 16 being independent claims and claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-15 and 17-21 dependent.
Claims 1-4 & 6-21 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 1-4 & 6-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is directed to a process, claim 10 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and claim 16 is directed to a system; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, representative claim 1 recites a series of steps for managing resource usage associated with a commercial relationship, which is a commercial or legal interaction, i.e. sales activities or behaviors, and thus grouped as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim as a whole and the limitations in combination recite this abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of representative claim 1 that recite the abstract idea are as follows:
A method, comprising:
partitioning a cloud service provider (CSP)- provided infrastructure in a first region into a plurality of portions of CSP-provided infrastructure, each portion of the CSP- provided infrastructure being isolated from other portions of the CSP-provided infrastructure;
deploying a first set of resources in a first portion of the CSP-provided infrastructure in the first region to provide one or more CSP-offered cloud services to one or more customers of a CSP;
creating a first virtual private label cloud (vPLC) for a first reseller in the first region, wherein creating the first vPLC comprises deploying a second set of resources in a second portion of the plurality of portions of the CSP-provided infrastructure 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;
obtaining a first resource identifier associated with a first resource being monitored, the first resource being deployed within the CSP-provided infrastructure;
determining the first vPLC and the first reseller associated with the first vPLC based at least in part on the first resource identifier associated with the first resource;
determining a first customer from the one or more customers of the first reseller based at least in part on the first resource identifier associated with the first resource;
identifying usage information for the first resource;
storing the usage information for the first reseller and the first customer of the first reseller,
obtaining enforcement information for the first resource; and
executing an enforcement action based on the usage information of the first resource, by transmitting an alert signal indicating whether a condition associated with the usage information of the first resource is violated.
The claimed limitations, identified above, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a commercial interaction involving management of resource usage associated with a reseller/customer relationship. Thus, claims 1, 10 and 16 recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional computing elements are used to implement the identified abstract idea within the recited cloud computing environment to perform the steps of providing, creating, obtaining, determining, identifying and storing. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e.as generic processors with memory suitably programmed communication information over a generic network, see at least paragraphs of the specifications) such that it amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see PEPE 2106.05(h). Furthermore, the step for “storing the usage information for the first reseller and the first customer of the first reseller’” is considered adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, 10 and 16 are directed to an abstract idea.
The amended independent claims further recite deploying, by a control plane of the CSP provided infrastructure, a first set of resources in a first portion of the CSP provided infrastructure and creating the first vPLC by deploying, by the control plane of the CSP provided infrastructure, a second set of resources in a second portion of the CSP provided infrastructure. However, these additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims use the control plane to deploy resources within the recited cloud computing environment, but do not recite an improvement to the operation of the control plane or to the manner in which the control plane deploys or provisions resources. Rather, the control plane performs resource deployment and provisioning functions within the CSP provided infrastructure in which the recited resource usage process is carried out. For example, the Specification describes a control plane allocating physical resources and creating and attaching VNICs ¶ [108], finding, provisioning, and launching available resources ¶ [256], and provisioning requested resources such as VM instances and storage ¶¶ [286 & 290].
The amended independent claims further recite executing an enforcement action based on the usage information of the first resource by transmitting an alert signal indicating whether a condition associated with the usage information of the first resource is violated. This limitation likewise does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claimed alert signal communicates whether the usage condition has been violated, but does not recite a technological improvement to the operation of the monitored resource, control plane, or CSP provided infrastructure.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer processors with memory suitably programmed communicating over a generic network to perform the limitation steps amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05 (h). Furthermore, the step for “storing the usage information for the first reseller and the first customer of the first reseller’” is considered adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
The amended limitations also fail to provide significantly more. The recitation that the first and second sets of resources are deployed by the control plane uses the control plane to perform the resource deployment and provisioning functions described in the Specification, and the recited transmission of an alert signal communicates whether the usage condition has been violated. Considered individually and in combination with the remaining claim limitations, the amendments do not recite a technological mechanism that changes or improves operation of the control plane, monitored resource, or CSP provided infrastructure and therefore do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea of without significantly more. The dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-15 and 17-21 when analyzed as a whole an in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for managing resource usage associated with a commercial relationship) using the recited computer environment. As discussed above, the claims use the CSP-provided infrastructure, control plane, vPLC, and associated computing components to carry out the identified abstract idea, without reciting a technological mechanism that changes or improves the operation of those components. As such, the claims, when considered as a whole, do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the identified abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/07/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection improperly characterizes the claimed invention at a high level of abstraction and is untethered from the actual claim language. Applicant relies Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp. and particularly points to the amended limitations reciting "deploying, by a control plane of the CSP- provided infrastructure, a first set of resources in a first portion of the CSP-provided infrastructure in the first region to provide one or more CSP-offered cloud services to one or more customers of a CSP " and "creating a first virtual private label cloud (vPLC) for a first reseller in the first region, wherein creating the first vPLC comprises deploying, by the control plane of the CSP-provided infrastructure, a second set of resources in a second portion of the plurality of portions of the CSP-provided infrastructure to the first vPLC”. Applicant further argues that these limitations cannot be performed completely in the human mind.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner has considered the amended claim language in its entirety. The fact that certain additional limitations, such as deploying resources by a control plane, cannot themselves be performed mentally does not establish that the claim as a whole is patent eligible. As discussed in the rejection above, the claim recites a commercial interaction involving management of resource usage associated with a reseller/customer relationship, while the additional technological limitations are separately considered under Step 2A, Prong Two to determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant’s reliance on Enfish is not persuasive. In Enfish, the claims were directed to a specific improvement in the way computers operated, namely a particular self-referential data structure. In the present application, the amended claims do not recite an improvement to the operation of the control plane or to the manner in which the control plane provisions or deploys resources. Rather, the control plane is used to deploy resources within the recited CSP-provided infrastructure. For example, the Specification itself describes a control plane allocating physical resources and creating and attaching VNICs ¶ [108], finding, provisioning, and launching available resources ¶ [256], and provisioning requested resources such as VM instances and storage ¶¶ [286 & 290]. Thus, the amended limitations use the control plane to perform the resource deployment and provisioning functions described in the Specification rather than reciting an improvement to the functioning of the control plane itself.
Applicant further argues, relying on DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., that the claims address a technical problem associated with monitoring resources allocated in cloud infrastructure and taking corrective action when a resource usage condition is violated and therefore provide a technical solution to a technical problem.
This argument is not persuasive. Although the claimed process is implemented in a cloud-computing environment, the amended claims do not recite a particular technological mechanism that improves the operation of that environment. The claims do not recite, for example, an improved control plane architecture, an improved resource provisioning technique, an improved virtualization technique, or an improved networking technique. Rather, the CSP infrastructure, control plane, and vPLC provide the technological environment in which the claimed resource usage management process is performed.
Further, Applicant’s characterization of the amended claims as providing a “corrective action” is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The amended independent claims recite executing an enforcement action based on the usage information of the first resource by transmitting an alert signal indicating whether a condition associated with the usage information of the first resource is violated. The claims do not require modifying operation of the monitored resource, reallocating computing resources, terminating or restricting the resource, modifying a network configuration, or changing operation of the control plane in response to the violation. Rather, the claimed enforcement action transmits an alert signal indicating whether the condition has been violated. Accordingly, the amended limitation does not establish the asserted technological improvement to the CSP provided infrastructure.
Applicant additionally argues under Step 2B that the claims amount to significantly more because they recite a particular machine and because the claimed arrangement is allegedly not well-understood, routine, and conventional. Applicant specifically asserts that it is not common practice to partition the infrastructure of the CSP into different isolated portions associated with virtual private label clouds. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. The recitation of a particular machine is a relevant consideration in determining whether a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, but does not, by itself, establish patent eligibility. The additional elements must be considered individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent eligible subject matter.
The Examiner has also considered Applicant’s argument regarding Berkheimer v. HP Inc. The Examiner acknowledges that whether an additional element or combination of additional elements is well-understood, routine, and conventional is a factual determination when relied upon under Step 2B. However, the amended claims have been considered individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above, the claims use the control plane to perform the recited resource deployment and provisioning functions and use the recited alert signal to communicate whether a usage condition has been violated. The amended claims do not recite a technological mechanism that changes or improves the operation of the control plane monitored resource, or CSP-provided infrastructure. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not establish that the amended limitations provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the identified abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
Additionally, Applicant states that each portion is allocated to a virtual private label cloud. However, this characterization is not commensurate with the scope of representative claim 1. Claim 1 recites a plurality of isolated portions, with a first set of resources deployed in a first portion to provide CSP-offered cloud services to customers of the CSP and a second set of resources deployed in a second portion to the first vPLC. Claim 1 does not require that each portion of the CSP-provided infrastructure be allocated to a respective vPLC. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument relies on a limitation that is not required by the claim.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments have ben fully considered but are not persuasive, and the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-21 under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TONY P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30am - 3:30 pm EST.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached at 5712723955. 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.
/T.P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights