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 Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
There is an extra comma (,) in line 1 of this claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 under the mental process without significantly more.
The claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 recite(s) a system, a method, and a medium respectively under step 1 for tracking resource utilization.
Re claim 1 (similarly re claims 8 and 15), a system comprising: memory storing processor-executable program code; and a processing unit to execute the processor-executable program code to cause the system to: receive a request including a resource usage limit associated with a computing resource; execute processing based on the request; determine an amount of the computing resource consumed during the processing; update the resource usage limit based on the determined amount; determine that the updated resource usage limit is greater than zero; and in response to the determination that the updated resource usage limit is greater than zero, return a response to the request including the updated resource usage limit.
Under Prong I step 2A, these claims 1, 8, and 15 recites limitations that would direct to an abstract idea under the mental process wherein the limitations in bold and italic above including “determine…processing”; “determine…zero”; and “in response…than zero” are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
Under Prong II step 2A, other limitations underline above are considered as additional elements. However, these additional elements are not sufficiently and significantly amount to more than the judicial exception because the additional elements “memory…; a processing unit” are merely well known computer system components and/or recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements “receiving…” and “updating…” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). And finally, the additional elements “execute…” and “return a response…” are merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea as “apply it". Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under step 2B, these additional elements either individually or in combination is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely recite generic computer and computer components, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations of receiving and updating, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The limitations of executing and return a response merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea, See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claim 2, similarly, the limitations in bold and italic below can be mentally done in human mind as similar analysis in Prong I step 2A above. And other limitations below are considered as additional elements under Prong II step 2A and 2B wherein these additional elements are not integrated into the practical application as these additional elements merely recite generic computer and computer components, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The other additional elements that the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(d), and merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
the processing unit to execute the processor-executable program code to cause the system to: receive a second request including a second resource usage limit associated with the computing resource; execute second processing based on the second request; determine a second amount of the computing resource consumed during the second processing; update the second resource usage limit based on the determined second amount; determine that the updated second resource usage limit is less than zero; and in response to the determination that the updated second resource usage limit is less than zero, return a response to the second request indicating an error.
Re claim 3, similarly, the limitations in bold and italic below can be mentally done in human mind as similar analysis in Prong I step 2A above. And other limitations below are considered as additional elements under Prong II step 2A and 2B wherein these additional elements are not integrated into the practical application as these additional elements merely recite generic computer and computer components, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The other additional elements that the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(d), and merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
execution of processing based on the request comprises transmission of a second request and reception of a second response to the second request, wherein determination of the amount of the computing resource consumed during the processing comprises determination of a second amount of the computing resource consumed during a period between transmission of the second request and reception of the second response to the second request, and wherein the resource usage limit is updated based on the determined amount and the determined second amount.
Re claim 4, similarly, the limitations in bold and italic below can be mentally done in human mind as similar analysis in Prong I step 2A above. And other limitations below are considered as additional elements under Prong II step 2A and 2B wherein these additional elements are not integrated into the practical application as these additional elements merely recite generic computer and computer components, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The other additional elements that the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(d), and merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
the request includes a second resource usage limit associated with a second computing resource, wherein determination of the amount of the computing resource consumed during the processing comprises determination of a second amount of the second computing resource consumed during the processing, wherein update of the resource usage limit based on the determined amount comprises update of the second resource usage limit based on the determined second amount, and wherein the response to the request includes the updated second resource usage limit.
Re claim 5, similarly, the limitations in bold and italic below can be mentally done in human mind as similar analysis in Prong I step 2A above. And other limitations below are considered as additional elements under Prong II step 2A and 2B wherein these additional elements are not integrated into the practical application as these additional elements merely recite generic computer and computer components, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The other additional elements that the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(d), and merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
execution of processing based on the request comprises transmission of a second request and reception of a second response to the second request, wherein determination of the amount of the computing resource consumed during the processing comprises determination of a third amount of the computing resource consumed during a period between transmission of the second request and reception of the second response to the second request, and a fourth amount of the second computing resource consumed during the period, and wherein the resource usage limit is updated based on the determined amount and the determined third amount, and the second resource usage limit is updated based on the determined second amount and the determined fourth amount.
Re claim 6, similarly, the limitations in bold and italic below can be mentally done in human mind as similar analysis in Prong I step 2A above. And other limitations below are considered as additional elements under Prong II step 2A and 2B wherein these additional elements are not integrated into the practical application as these additional elements merely recite generic computer and computer components, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The other additional elements that the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(d), and merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
second memory storing second processor-executable program code; and a second processing unit to execute the second processor-executable program code to: receive an external request; determine a request type of the external request; and determine the resource usage limit based on the request type.
Re claim 7, similarly, the limitations in bold and italic below can be mentally done in human mind as similar analysis in Prong I step 2A above. And other limitations below are considered as additional elements under Prong II step 2A and 2B wherein these additional elements are not integrated into the practical application as these additional elements merely recite generic computer and computer components, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The other additional elements that the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(d), and merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
the second processing unit to execute the second processor-executable program code to: determine a tenant associated with the external request, wherein the resource usage limit is determined based on the request type and the tenant.
Re claim 9, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re claim 10, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Re claim 11, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Re claim 12, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Re claim 13, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Re claim 14, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Re claim 16, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re claim 17, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Re claim 18, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Re claim 19, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Re claim 20, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim having similar limitations cited in claims 6-7. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claims 6-7 above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Capoa et al. (U.S. 2022/0035668) in view of Kona (U.S. 11,146,624).
Re claim 1, de Capoa et al. disclose in Figures 1-5 a system (e.g. abstract and Figures 1) comprising: memory storing processor-executable program code; and a processing unit to execute the processor-executable program code to cause the system to (e.g. Figures 1-3 with the software implementation of the invention on the computers): receive a request including a resource usage limit associated with a computing resource (e.g. paragraphs [0025-0028 and 0035] wherein requests with estimation resource for consumption are provided); execute processing based on the request (e.g. Figures 4 and paragraphs [0050-0052] wherein the request is processed/executed); determine an amount of the computing resource consumed during the processing (e.g. Figures 4 and paragraphs [0046 and 0049-0052] with present/current resource consumption of processes are monitored/tracked); update the resource usage limit based on the determined amount (e.g. Figures 4 and paragraphs [0054-0055]); determine that the updated resource usage limit is greater than zero (e.g. Figures 4 and paragraphs [0054-0055] with errori(k) expression); and in response to the determination that the updated resource usage limit is greater than zero, return a response to the request (e.g. Figures 4 and paragraphs [0061-0064]). De Capoa et al. fail to explicitly discloses the response including the updated resource usage limit. However, Kona discloses in Figures 1-12 the response including the updated resource usage limit (e.g. Figures 5-9 and col. 7 lines 25-58 and col. 10 lines 60-68 wherein the resource usage are recorded). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add the response including the updated resource usage limit as seen in Kona’s invention into de Capoa et al.’s invention because it would enable to efficiently track the resource usage for management purposes.
Re claim 2, de Capoa et al. in view of Kona disclose the processing unit to execute the processor-executable program code to cause the system to: receive a second request including a second resource usage limit associated with the computing resource (e.g. de Capoa - paragraphs [0025-0028 and 0035] wherein requests with estimation resource for consumption are provided with second component); execute second processing based on the second request (e.g. de Capoa - Figures 4 and paragraphs [0050-0052] wherein the request is processed/executed with second component); determine a second amount of the computing resource consumed during the second processing (e.g. de Capoa - Figures 4 and paragraphs [0054-0055] with second component); update the second resource usage limit based on the determined second amount (e.g. de Capoa - Figures 4 and paragraphs [0054-0055] with second component); determine that the updated second resource usage limit is less than zero (e.g. de Capoa - Figures 4 and paragraphs [0054-0055] with errori(k) expression with second component); and in response to the determination that the updated second resource usage limit is less than zero, return a response to the second request indicating an error (e.g. de Capoa et al. – Figures 4 and paragraphs [0061-0064] and Kona – Figures 5-9 with second component and when an error occurs due to inefficient resource and col. 7 lines 25-58 and col. 10 lines 60-68 wherein the resource usage are recorded).
Re claim 3, de Capoa et al. in view of Kona disclose execution of processing based on the request comprises transmission of a second request and reception of a second response to the second request (e.g. de Capoa - paragraphs [0025-0028 and 0035] wherein requests with estimation resource for consumption are provided with second component), wherein determination of the amount of the computing resource consumed during the processing comprises determination of a second amount of the computing resource consumed during a period between transmission of the second request and reception of the second response to the second request (e.g. de Capoa - Figures 4 and paragraphs [0054-0055] with errori(k) expression with second component), and wherein the resource usage limit is updated based on the determined amount and the determined second amount (e.g. de Capoa et al. – Figures 5-9 with second component and col. 7 lines 25-58 and col. 10 lines 60-68 wherein the resource usage are adjusted/updated).
Re claim 4, de Capoa et al. in view of Kona disclose the request includes a second resource usage limit associated with a second computing resource, wherein determination of the amount of the computing resource consumed during the processing comprises determination of a second amount of the second computing resource consumed during the processing (e.g. de Capoa - Figures 4 and paragraphs [0054-0055] with errori(k) expression with second component), wherein update of the resource usage limit based on the determined amount comprises update of the second resource usage limit based on the determined second amount, and wherein the response to the request includes the updated second resource usage limit (e.g. de Capoa et al. – Figures 5-9 with second component and col. 7 lines 25-58 and col. 10 lines 60-68 wherein the resource usage are adjusted/updated).
Re claim 5, de Capoa et al. in view of Kona disclose execution of processing based on the request comprises transmission of a second request and reception of a second response to the second request (e.g. de Capoa - paragraphs [0025-0028 and 0035] wherein requests with estimation resource for consumption are provided with second component), wherein determination of the amount of the computing resource consumed during the processing comprises determination of a third amount of the computing resource consumed during a period between transmission of the second request and reception of the second response to the second request, and a fourth amount of the second computing resource consumed during the period (e.g. de Capoa - Figures 4 and paragraphs [0054-0055]), and wherein the resource usage limit is updated based on the determined amount and the determined third amount (e.g. de Capoa - Figures 4 and paragraphs [0054-0055] with errori(k) expression with third component with feedback loop), and the second resource usage limit is updated based on the determined second amount and the determined fourth amount (e.g. de Capoa et al. – Figures 5-9 with second component and col. 7 lines 25-58 and col. 10 lines 60-68 wherein the resource usage are adjusted/updated for the third subsequence component).
Re claim 6, de Capoa et al. in view of Kona disclose second memory storing second processor-executable program code; and a second processing unit to execute the second processor-executable program code to: receive an external request (e.g. de Capoa et al. – Figures 2-4 and paragraphs [0025 and 0035]); determine a request type of the external request (e.g. de Capoa et al. – Figures 4 and paragraphs [0065-0070]); and determine the resource usage limit based on the request type (e.g. de Capoa et al. – abstract and Figures 4 and paragraphs [0054-0055]) and Kona – col. 25 example 11).
Re claim 7, de Capoa et al. in view of Kona disclose the second processing unit to execute the second processor-executable program code to: determine a tenant associated with the external request (e.g. Kona – abstract and col. 3 lines 45-61 and col. 4 lines 25-35), wherein the resource usage limit is determined based on the request type and the tenant (e.g. de Capoa et al. – abstract and Figures 4 and paragraphs [0054-0055]) and Kona – col. 25 example 11).
Re claim 8, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 9, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re claim 10, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Re claim 11, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Re claim 12, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Re claim 13, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Re claim 14, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Re claim 15, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 16, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re claim 17, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Re claim 18, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Re claim 19, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Re claim 20, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim having similar limitations cited in claims 6-7. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claims 6-7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0052573 discloses a method of acquiring information related to one or more first resources; carrying out channel sensing for a channel access procedure (CAP) related to the one or more first resources.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0052152 discloses an entity includes a physical configuration resource, and the one or more second entities include a function configuration resource generated after the physical configuration resource is configured. The management host allocates, according to a resource allocation policy.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0094224 discloses a resource manager tracks the amount of available memory for a cluster of machines and for each machine in the cluster.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0244392 discloses techniques are provided for input/output operations per second (lOPS) and throughput monitoring for dynamic and/or optimal resource allocation.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0205664 discloses a system predicts whether a monitored computing system will experience anomalies by comparing forecasted values associated with components in the monitored computing system to threshold values.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0179707 discloses a system for providing computer implemented services using information handling systems includes a composed information handling system that provides, at least in part, the computer implemented services and a system control processor manager.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0124009 discloses various systems and methods for implementing intent-based orchestration in heterogenous compute platforms.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0363233 discloses technologies are disclosed for real-time workload tracking and throttling within a multi-tenant service. Multi-tenant services receive requests from computing devices associated with different tenants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chat C Do whose telephone number is (571)272-3721. The examiner can normally be reached {M - Th} 4:30am - 2:30pm.
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, Dede Zecher can be reached at 571-272-0800. 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.
/Chat C Do/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193