CTNF 18/533,583 CTNF 74519 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION This communication is in response to the application filed 08 December 2023. Claims 1-7 are pending. The rejections are as stated below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 (exemplary) recites a series of steps for allocating computer resources by adding or removing pods (see page 2 of Applicant’s specification and claims). The claim is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. Independent system claims 1, recites the limitations of executing instructions to realize one service by combining services which are provided using a plurality of pods, wherein realizing the one service comprises adding a pod to an arbitrary resource as one part of the plurality of pods. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers steps directed to organizing human activity, namely a fundamental economic practice of managing and allocating resources and assigning tasks. Under the Guidance, certain methods of organizing human activity, including a fundamental economic practice (allocating equipment or assigning workers to perform certain tasks) or commercial interactions, represent an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Therefore, it is clear that exemplary independent claim 1 recites limitations, under the Revised Guidance, fall under the category of abstract ideas related to “certain methods of organizing human activity” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 . See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Accordingly, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The recited judicial exception may be integrated into a practical application by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of a memory, a processor, a control network, a data network and an arbitrary smart resource to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of processing data (see Applicant’s specification, page 2). This generic computer limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. 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. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is directed to the abstract idea. 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). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the processor at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h). 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. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. The analysis above applies to the statutory category of invention of claims 1, 6 and 7. Furthermore, dependent claims 2-5 do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Lastly, dependent claims 2-5 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a processor, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic server to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 1-7 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis. The instant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, el al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by DOSHI et al (US 20210117249 A1), hereinafter “DOSHI” . Regarding claims 1, 6 and 7, DOSHI et al. discloses a computer system and a corresponding method, comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute instructions to realize one service by combining services which are provided using a plurality of pods coupled via a control network which is a network for performing control and a data network which is a network for performing transmission and reception of data, wherein realizing the one service comprises adding a pod to an arbitrary smart resource as one part of the plurality of pods (figures 1-3, and ¶¶ 0058-0070). Regarding claim 2, DOSHI discloses the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: perform addition of a pod to the arbitrary smart resource under the control via the control network (figures 1-2, ¶¶ 0058-0065 and 0091). Regarding claim 3, DOSHI discloses the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: remove the unnecessary pod from the plurality of pods when the added pod becomes unnecessary (figures 1-2, ¶¶ 0058-0065 and 0091). Regarding claim 4, DOSHI discloses the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: perform exclusion of the unnecessary pod under the control via the control network (figures 1-2, ¶¶ 0058-0065 and 0091). Regarding claim 5, DOSHI discloses the arbitrary smart resource includes at least one of a storage, a graphics processing unit (GPU) accelerator, an input/output (I/O) device which is a camera or a sensor, a memory, and a central processing unit (CPU) (¶¶ 0050-0060) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dutta et al. (US 10705882 B2) discloses a method and system “for determining a point of delivery (POD) device or network component on a cloud for workload and resource placement in a multi-cloud environment. A method includes determining a first amount of data for transitioning from performing a first function on input data to performing a second function on a first outcome of the first function; determining a second amount of data for transitioning from performing the second function on the first outcome to performing a third function on a second outcome of the second function; determining a processing capacity for each of one or more network nodes on which the first function and the third function are implemented; and selecting the network node for implementing the second function based on the first amount of data, the second amount of data, and the processing capacity for each of the network nodes.” VAN DE GROENENDAAL et al. (US 20210117242 A1) discloses “an Infrastructure Processing Unit (IPU) that comprises: interface circuitry to provide a communicative coupling with a platform; network interface circuitry to provide a communicative coupling with a network medium; and circuitry to expose infrastructure services to be accessed by microservices for function composition.” Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hani Kazimi whose telephone number is (571) 272-6745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. 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 on (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. Respectfully Submitted /HANI M KAZIMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691 Application/Control Number: 18/533,583 Page 2 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 18/533,583 Page 3 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 18/533,583 Page 4 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 18/533,583 Page 5 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 18/533,583 Page 6 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 18/533,583 Page 7 Art Unit: 3691 Application/Control Number: 18/533,583 Page 8 Art Unit: 3691