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
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/18/2025 has been entered.
This application 18/468,047 claims earliest priority from provisional application 63407571, filed 09/16/2022.
No new amendments, claim 5 previously canceled.
Claims 1, 10 and 16 being independent claims and claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-15 and 17-21 dependent.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-14, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to the 102 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 SUC 102 rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Claims 1-4 & 6-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Examiner Note
No amendments or remarks were filed with the request for continued examination (RCE) filed on 11/18/2025. Accordingly, the rejections set forth in the prior Office action are 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 1-4 & 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 identifying usage for billing 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, stripped of all additional elements, recite the abstract idea 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;
using 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 allocating 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, and
responsive to obtaining enforcement information for the first resource, executing an enforcement action based on the usage information of the first resource, wherein the enforcement action includes 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 or legal interaction, but for the recitation of generic computer components. There is nothing in the claim element which takes the steps out of the methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping. 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 claim only recites using generic, commercially available, off-the-shelf computing devices, i.e. processors suitably programmed communicating over a generic network, 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.
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). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components interacting in a conventional manner cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 10 and 16 are not patent eligible.
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 identifying usage for billing) on one or more computers, and are considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer system (e.g. processors suitably programmed and communicating over a network) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. As such, the claims, when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the instruction to implement the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for identifying usage for billing) in a particular, albeit well-understood, routine and conventional technological environment.
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.
Conclusion
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