DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
As a preliminary issue, the claim limitations are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification.
For example, according to the Specification, the tenant can be a computer system [0027]; or in some instances, a human user [0028].
Furthermore, the term “resource(s)” is given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with its ordinary dictionary meaning.
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 a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis:
Claim 7: Ineligible.
STEP 1:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim encompasses a computer system (e.g., hardware such as processors and memories) for managing shared resources. The system is directed to at least a machine, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). See MPEP 2106.03.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1):
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites
a processor;
a hardware storage device storing computer-executable instructions that are executed by the processor to cause the computing system to:
for each tenant of a plurality of tenants, determine a fixed limit of resource capacity guaranteed to be available to each tenant;
periodically evaluate each tenant to identify unused resources and assign the unused resources to a common pool;
calculating a fair borrowing limit of resources that each tenant is allocated to borrow from the common pool, wherein the fair borrowing limit of resources is based at least in part on a proportional analysis of a percentage of resources currently borrowed by each tenant from the common pool compared to a percentage of the fixed limit of resource capacity guaranteed to be available to each tenant relative to a sum of all fixed limits of resources corresponding to the plurality of tenants;
determine, based on the proportional analysis, which of the plurality of tenants are fairly borrowing tenants that are fairly borrowing resources from the common pool at or below the calculated fair borrowing limit and which of the plurality of tenants are unfairly borrowing tenants that are unfairly borrowing resources from the common pool above the calculated fair borrowing limit;
generate a new calculated borrowing limit of resources an unfairly borrowing tenant is allocated to borrow from the common pool which is less than the fair borrowing limit that was previously calculated; and
reject a request from an unfairly borrowing tenant to borrow additional resources from the common pool upon determining the request from the unfairly borrowing tenant would cause an allocation of resources from the common pool to the unfairly borrowing tenant to exceed the new calculated borrowing limit.
In order words, the bolded claim limitations describe management of resources amongst a group of people.
Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, the bolded claim limitations fall under the abstract idea category of “mental processes” and/or “certain methods of organizing human activity” group in the form of fundamental economic practice. (Step 2A1-Yes). See MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2):
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. Examiner submits that the foregoing italicized limitation(s) constitute the additional elements.
{Examiner notes that claims 1-6 do not recite any additional elements to be considered under this Step 2A (prong 2), and so, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.}
For claims 7-12: The claim recites additional elements of processor and hardware storage device (memory). The processor and memory in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors and memory performing generic computer functions. These elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these 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. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2-No). See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)
STEP 2B:
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept).
{For claims 1-6: Examiner further notes that as discussed with respect to Step 2A (prong 2) above, the absence of additional claim elements to determine whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas renders this Step 2B moot}
For claims 7-12: As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.05
Claim 1 recites corresponding method equivalent of claim 7. This claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 7, supra.
Claims 2-3 and 8-9 recite reserving a first minimum quantity of resources in the common pool to be reclaimed by donating tenants; reserving a second minimum quantity of resources in the common pool to be borrowed by fairly borrowing tenants.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 7. The additional elements, as similarly analyzed in claim 7 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 7, supra.
Claims 4 and 10 recite wherein calculating the fair borrowing limit of resources that each tenant is allocated to borrow from the common pool is based at least in part on a different proportional analysis of the percentage of resources currently borrowed by each tenant from the common pool compared to a different percentage of the fixed limit of resource capacity guaranteed to be available to each tenant relative to a sum of fixed limits of resources corresponding to one or more borrowing tenants of the plurality of tenants.
This limitation further narrows the abstract idea, but is nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 7. The additional elements, as similarly analyzed in claim 7 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 7, supra.
Claims 5 and 11 recite receiving a request from a donating tenant to reclaim resources from the common pool; determining that the common pool has insufficient resources to fulfill the request from the donating tenant; upon determining that the common pool has insufficient resources to fulfill the request from the donating tenant, forcing a return of resources from one or more borrowing tenants back to the common pool; and fulfilling the request from the donating tenant by allocating resources from the common pool to the donating tenant.
This limitation further narrows the abstract idea, but is nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 7. The additional elements, as similarly analyzed in claim 7 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 7, supra.
Claims 6 and 12 recite wherein the donating tenant requests to reclaim up to a fixed limit of resources corresponding to the donating tenant from the common pool for triggering a forced return of resources from the one or more borrowing tenants.
This limitation further narrows the abstract idea, but is nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 7. The additional elements, as similarly analyzed in claim 7 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 7, supra.
Claim 13: Ineligible.
STEP 1:
The claim recites a series of acts for managing shared resources. The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES). See MPEP 2106.03.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1):
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites:
identifying a plurality of tenants participating in the multi-tenant environment;
for each tenant of the plurality of tenants, determining a tenant status as a donating tenant that is donating some or all of a fixed limit of resources guaranteed to be available to the particular tenant, a fairly borrowing tenant that is borrowing resources at or below a previously calculated fair borrowing limit, or an unfairly borrowing tenant that is borrowing resources above previously calculated fair borrowing limit; and
applying a different borrowing algorithm to each tenant of the plurality of tenants based on a corresponding tenant status determined for each tenant, wherein different borrowing algorithms are configured to determine new borrowing limits associated with borrowing shared resources from a common pool in the multi-tenant environment.
In order words, the bolded claim limitations describe management of resources amongst a group of people.
Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) and/or certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, the bolded claim limitations fall under the abstract idea category of “mental processes” and/or “certain methods of organizing human activity” group in the form of fundamental economic practice. (Step 2A1-Yes). See MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2):
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. Examiner submits that the foregoing italicized limitation(s) constitute the additional elements.
{Examiner notes that claim 13 does not recite any additional elements to be considered under this Step 2A (prong 2), and so, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.}
Assuming, arguendo, that the claim includes additional elements such as a processor and hardware storage device (memory). The processor and memory in the steps are considered recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors and memory performing generic computer functions. These elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these 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. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2-No). See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)
STEP 2B:
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept).
{Examiner further notes that as discussed with respect to Step 2A (prong 2) above, the absence of additional claim elements to determine whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas renders this Step 2B moot}
Also, assuming, arguendo, that the claim includes additional elements in Step 2A2: As discussed with respect to alternative Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.05
Claim 14 recites wherein the shared resources in the multi-tenant environment are represented by tokens.
This limitation further narrows the abstract idea, but is nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 13. The additional elements if present, and as similarly analyzed in claim 13 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 13, supra.
Claim 15 recites receiving a request from a particular tenant to be processed by a large language model; determining a maximum capacity of a system associated with the multi-tenant environment that will be needed to process the request; determining that allocating tokens for meeting maximum capacity that will be needed to process the request does not exceed a new borrowing limit determined for the particular tenant; and allocating a number of tokens to the particular tenant for processing the request, wherein the allocated tokens represent an amount of resources from the shared resources that the particular tenant is expected to consume in processing the request.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 13. The additional elements if present, as similarly analyzed in claim 13 above. Furthermore, the use of large learning model is simply generic data processing, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 16 recites wherein the tenant status is determined to be the fairly borrowing tenant or unfairly borrowing tenant based at least in part on a proportional analysis of a percentage of resources currently borrowed by a particular tenant from the common pool compared to a percentage of a fixed limit of resource capacity guaranteed to be available to the particular tenant relative to a sum of all fixed limits of resources corresponding to the plurality of tenants.
This limitation further narrows the abstract idea, but is nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 13. The additional elements if present, and as similarly analyzed in claim 13 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 13, supra.
Claim 17 recites wherein the tenant status is determined to be the fairly borrowing tenant or unfairly borrowing tenant based at least in part on a proportional analysis of a percentage of resources currently borrowed by a particular tenant from the common pool compared to a percentage of a fixed limit of resource capacity guaranteed to be available to the particular tenant relative to a sum of all fixed limits of resources corresponding to one or more borrowing tenants.
This limitation further narrows the abstract idea, but is nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 13. The additional elements if present, and as similarly analyzed in claim 13 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 13, supra.
Claim 18-19 recite wherein a first resource borrowing limit corresponding to an unfairly borrowing tenant is less than a second resource borrowing limit corresponding to a fairly borrowing tenant; wherein a third resource borrowing limit corresponding to a donating tenant is greater than the second resource borrowing limit.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 13. The additional elements if present, and as similarly analyzed in claim 13 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 13, supra.
Claim 20 recites rejecting a request from an unfairly borrowing tenant to borrow additional resources from the common pool upon determining the request from the unfairly borrowing tenant would cause an amount of resources available in the common pool to drop below a minimum threshold.
This limitation further narrows the abstract idea, but is nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 13. The additional elements if present, and as similarly analyzed in claim 13 above, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention as a whole also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 13, supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For independent claims 1 and 7:
1. Sundaram et al. (USPAP 2021/0092072) teaches a method (and corresponding computer system) for managing shared resources in a multi-tenant environment, the method comprising (0012):
for each tenant of a plurality of tenants, determining a fixed limit of resource capacity guaranteed to be available to each tenant (0043, fig. 3, step 304);
periodically evaluating each tenant to identify unused resources and assigning the unused resources to a common pool (0045-0046, fig. 3, step 310).
2. Govindan et al. (USPAP 2024/0378088) teaches approaches to optimizing compute resource allocation for heavy workloads in elastic environments (0024, 0049, 0073).
None of the cited prior arts individually, or in combination, teaches or fairly suggests the following limitations:
calculating a fair borrowing limit of resources that each tenant is allocated to borrow from the common pool, wherein the fair borrowing limit of resources is based at least in part on a proportional analysis of a percentage of resources currently borrowed by each tenant from the common pool compared to a percentage of the fixed limit of resource capacity guaranteed to be available to each tenant relative to a sum of all fixed limits of resources corresponding to the plurality of tenants; determining, based on the proportional analysis, which of the plurality of tenants are fairly borrowing tenants that are fairly borrowing resources from the common pool at or below the calculated fair borrowing limit of resources and which of the plurality of tenants are unfairly borrowing tenants that are unfairly borrowing resources from the common pool above the calculated fair borrowing limit of resources; generating a new calculated borrowing limit of resources an unfairly borrowing tenant is allocated to borrow from the common pool which is less than the fair borrowing limit of resources that was previously calculated; and rejecting a request from an unfairly borrowing tenant to borrow additional resources from the common pool upon determining the request from the unfairly borrowing tenant would cause an allocation of resources from the common pool to the unfairly borrowing tenant to exceed the new calculated borrowing limit.
These limitations can be gleaned from paragraphs 0063-0065, 0079-0082; and figs. 8 and 9 of Applicant’s disclosure.
For independent claim 13:
Sundaram ae al. (USPAP 2021/0092072) teaches a method identifying a plurality of tenants participating in the multi-tenant environment; for each tenant of the plurality of tenants, determining a tenant status (0043, fig. 3, step 304); and applying a different borrowing algorithm to each tenant of the plurality of tenants based on a corresponding tenant status determined for each tenant, wherein different borrowing algorithms are configured to determine new borrowing limits associated with borrowing shared resources from a common pool in the multi-tenant environment (0043, fig. 3, step 304).
None of the cited prior arts individually, or in combination, teaches or fairly suggests the following limitations:
determining a tenant status as a donating tenant that is donating some or all of a fixed limit of resources guaranteed to be available to the particular tenant, a fairly borrowing tenant that is borrowing resources at or below a previously calculated fair borrowing limit, or an unfairly borrowing tenant that is borrowing resources above previously calculated fair borrowing limit.
These limitations can be gleaned from paragraphs 0063-0065, 0079-0082; and figs. 8 and 9 of Applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLABODE AKINTOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-3629. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30a-6:00p.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
/OLABODE AKINTOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691