CTNF 18/534,375 CTNF 87471 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. 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. DETAILED ACTION The following NON-FINAL Office action is in response to application 18534375 filed 12/08/2023. 37 CFR § 1.105 - Requirement for Information Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application. Examiner’s search appears to suggest Applicant publicly used the management of cloud-compute farms as evidenced by at least the following references: #1. ChaosSearch Workers are AWS Graviton Ready, chaossearch webpages, June 8, 2023 #2 ChaosSearch Data Lake Platform, aws amazon webpages, way back machine, June 4, 2023 07-109 AIA The information is required to identify products and services embodying the disclosed subject matter of management of cloud-compute farms and identify the properties of similar products and services found in the prior art. -> In response to this requirement, please provide any additional citation and a copy of each publication that any of the applicants relied upon to develop the disclosed subject matter that describes the applicant’s invention, particularly as to management of cloud-compute farms. For each publication, please provide a concise explanation of the reliance placed on that publication in the development of the disclosed subject matter. Specifically, the Examiner requests brochures, manuals, white papers, training materials, demos, sales presentations or the like related to the aforementioned product(s) software and/or other software directed to the management of cloud-compute farms . 07-117 AIA -> In response to this requirement, please provide the citation and a copy of each publication that any of the applicants relied upon to draft the claimed subject matter. For each publication, please provide a concise explanation of the reliance placed on that publication in distinguishing the claimed subject matter from the prior art. -> In response to this requirement, please provide the names of any products or services that have incorporated the disclosed prior art of management of cloud-compute farms . 07-119 AIA -> In response to this requirement, please provide the names of any products or services that have incorporated the claimed subject matter. In responding to those requirements that require copies of documents, where the document is a bound text or a single article over 50 pages, the requirement may be met by providing copies of those pages that provide the particular subject matter indicated in the requirement, or where such subject matter is not indicated, the subject matter found in applicant’s disclosure. The fee and certification requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97 are waived for those documents submitted in reply to this requirement. This waiver extends only to those documents within the scope of this requirement under 37 C.F.R. § 1.105 that are included in the applicant’s first complete communication responding to this requirement. Any supplemental replies subsequent to the first communication responding to this requirement and any information disclosures beyond the scope of this requirement under 37 C.F.R. § 1.105 are subject to the fee and certification requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97. The applicant is reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56. Where the applicant does not have or cannot readily obtain an item of required information, a statement that the item is unknown or cannot be readily obtained will be accepted as a complete response to the requirement for that item. This requirement is an attachment of the enclosed Office action. A complete response to the enclosed Office action must include a complete response to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the enclosed Office action, which is 3 months . /PATRICIA H MUNSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows. Claim Interpretation with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) / 112, sixth paragraph 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6 th paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such limitations are in apparatus Claim 19 as follows: means for calculating an aggregate compute resource schedule based on the monitored use of compute resources; means for transmitting , to a compute cloud provider, a first request for a first set of compute workers based on the aggregate compute resource schedule; means for receiving , from the compute cloud provider, the first set of compute workers; means for allocating the first set of compute workers to a compute farm; means for receiving a second request for a second set of compute workers from a first client cloud system of the plurality of client cloud systems and a third request for a third set of compute workers from a second client cloud system of the plurality of client cloud systems; and means for transferring a first subset of the allocated first set of compute workers from the compute farm to the first client cloud system based on the second request and the monitored use of compute resources and a second subset of the allocated first set of compute workers from the compute farm to the second client cloud system based on the third request and the monitored use of compute resources . [bolded emphasis added] Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Lastly, the Examiner also notes that first limitation of means for monitoring a use of compute resources by a plurality of client cloud systems ; appears to indicate that “ means for monitoring ” is modified “ by a plurality of client cloud systems ”, as sufficient structure, and thus it appears such limitation fails prong (C) to be interpreted based on 112(f). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - based on 112 (f) interpretation - 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), ¶1, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, here the Claim 19 An apparatus for accessing compute resources in a cloud environment, comprising : means for calculating an aggregate compute resource schedule based on the monitored use of compute resources; means for transmitting , to a compute cloud provider, a first request for a first set of compute workers based on the aggregate compute resource schedule; means for receiving , from the compute cloud provider, the first set of compute workers; means for allocating the first set of compute workers to a compute farm; means for receiving a second request for a second set of compute workers from a first client cloud system of the plurality of client cloud systems and a third request for a third set of compute workers from a second client cloud system of the plurality of client cloud systems; and means for transferring a first subset of the allocated first set of compute workers from the compute farm to the first client cloud system based on the second request and the monitored use of compute resources and a second subset of the allocated first set of compute workers from the compute farm to the second client cloud system based on the third request and the monitored use of compute resources . [bolded emphasis added] Thus, when tested per when tested per MPEP 2181, said limitations appear to invoke 112(f). Original Specification ¶ [0043] 2 nd -3 rd sentences recites: “ These apparatus and methods are described in the following detailed description and illustrated in the accompanying drawings by various blocks, components, circuits, processes, algorithms, etc. (collectively referred to as “elements”). These elements may be implemented using electronic hardware, computer software, or any combination thereof ”. Original Specification ¶ [0106]-[0107] similarly discloses several system, unis and components associated to such means. Yet, Original Specification fails to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, such as by an algorithm . Specifically, the Original Specification does not appear to clearly link each of the respective functions of each of the recited means with each respective structure such as by an algorithm . Original Specification thus does not appear to demonstrate that the Applicant has made an invention that achieves each and all of respective claimed functions by each of the respective structure because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one or ordinary skills in the art can reasonably conclude that inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner recommends, as example only, that Applicant amend, Claim 19 to no longer invoke 35 USC 112 (f) such as replacing the means with corresponding hardware and/or software. For example, the Examiner recommends Applicant amend Claim 19 to remove the terms “ means ” and add the necessary hardware of memory and processor in a manner similar to that of independent Claim 1. Clarifications and corrections are required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - based on 112 (f) interpretation - 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), ¶2 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, at Claim 19 An apparatus for accessing compute resources in a cloud environment, comprising : means for calculating an aggregate compute resource schedule based on the monitored use of compute resources; means for transmitting , to a compute cloud provider, a first request for a first set of compute workers based on the aggregate compute resource schedule; means for receiving , from the compute cloud provider, the first set of compute workers; means for allocating the first set of compute workers to a compute farm; means for receiving a second request for a second set of compute workers from a first client cloud system of the plurality of client cloud systems and a third request for a third set of compute workers from a second client cloud system of the plurality of client cloud systems; and means for transferring a first subset of the allocated first set of compute workers from the compute farm to the first client cloud system based on the second request and the monitored use of compute resources and a second subset of the allocated first set of compute workers from the compute farm to the second client cloud system based on the third request and the monitored use of compute resources . [bolded emphasis added] Thus, when tested per when tested per MPEP 2181, said limitations appear to invoke 112(f). Original Specification ¶ [0043] 2 nd -3 rd sentences recites: “ These apparatus and methods are described in the following detailed description and illustrated in the accompanying drawings by various blocks, components, circuits, processes, algorithms, etc. (collectively referred to as “elements”). These elements may be implemented using electronic hardware, computer software, or any combination thereof ”. Original Specification ¶ [0106]-¶ [0107] similarly discloses several system, unis and components associated to such means. Yet, Original Specification fails to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, such as by an algorithm . Specifically, the Original Specification does not appear to clearly link each of the respective functions of each of the recited means with each respective structure such as by an algorithm , thus rendering said claim vague and indefinite. Examiner recommends, as example only, that Applicant amend, Claim 19 to no longer invoke 35 USC 112 (f) such as replacing the “ means” with corresponding hardware and/or software. For example, the Examiner recommends Applicant amend Claim 19 to remove the terms “ means ” and add the necessary hardware of memory and processor in a manner similar to that of independent Claim 1. Clarifications and corrections are required. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - aside from 112 (f) interpretation - 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), ¶2 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically: Claim 1 is independent and recites among others: “ at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination , is configured to ”: Claims 3-5,7 are dependent and similarly recite: “ wherein the at least one processor, individually or in combination , is further configured to ”. Examiner tests said Claims 1, 3-5, 7 on MPEP 2171 (B) “ the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant ” and MPEP 2173.02 I, ¶4: “ During examination, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification to the claim, if the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear, the claim is indefinite and should be rejected ” and MPEP 2173.02 II: “ In reviewing a claim for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, the examiner must consider the claim as a whole to determine whether the claim apprises one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope and, therefore, serves the notice function required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, by providing clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement of the patent ”. Here, it is unclear about the metes and bounds of the “ any combination ” (Claim 1) and “ combination” (Claims 3,-5,7) that “ the at least one processor” is associated with, in order to provide a clear warning to others as to what would constitute infringement of the patent. For example, it is unclear if the metes and bounds of the combination refer to: other processors or, entirely different elements. Thus, Examiner reasons that such an issue is one of vagueness and indefiniteness as opposed to one of claim breadth. Claims 1,3-5,7 are recommended to be amended to each recite, as an example only: at least one one or more processor , individually or in combination , is further configured to etc. Claims 2-11 are dependent and rejected based on rejected parent independent Claim 1. Clarifications and corrections are required. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea, here abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) describe or set forth the abstract “managing ” of “resources ” as summarized at preamble of independent Claims 1,12,19 and detailed throughout the body of Claims 1-20 with respect to market participants such as: “ provider ”, “ farm ”, “ workers ”, and the various associated “ clients”. When tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II such “managing ” of “resources ” including the various request [s] for “ compute workers ”, “ resource schedule based on the monitored use ” [interpreted as demand] “ of ” “ resources ”; and allocat [ion] [of] “ the first set of ” “ workers” [or supply] “to a ” “ farm ” [entity, or market participant] as well as its associated “ transfer ”[of] “ allocated ” [or supplied] “ workers ”, throughout Claims 1-20 recite, describe or set forth the fundamental practices or principles of demand or request(s) , and ensuing supply allocation, that fall well within the abstract Certain methods of organizing human activities grouping . Also, the fact that such resources are “ compute resources ”, and the fact that the provider is “ a cloud compute provider ”, and the fact that the workers are “ compute workers ”, and the fact that the farm is a “ compute farm ” and the clients are client cloud systems, do not necessarily render the claims less abstract and eligible because according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A ¶2 the abstract fundamental concept is not used in the sense of being old or well-known but rather as a building block of modern economy. Here, the “ provider ”, “ workers ”, “ farm ”, clients and associated request s for “ workers” and “managing ” of “resources ” including “ resource schedule based on the monitored use of ” “ resources ”; and allocat [ion] [of] “ workers to a ” “ farm ” and its associated “ transfer ”[of] “ allocated ” “ workers ”, represent such building blocks of economy no matter of the computer environment upon which they are used. MPEP 2106.04(A)(2) I ¶3, corroborates such finding by stating that narrow laws that may have limited applications were still held ineligible. Here, the “managing ” of “resources ” recited at the preamble of independent Claims 1,12,19 and further explained as deallocat [ion], allocat [ion] and associated “ transfer ” and configur [ation] of “ workers ” in the body of Claims 1,3,4,7,12-14,17,19 is limited to applications relating to “ compute resources ” which, as tested per MPEP 2106.04(A)(2) I ¶3 supra, do not preclude the claims to recite, describe or set forth the abstract idea. Such finding is further corroborated by Tranxition v. Lenovo (United States) Inc . as cited by USPTO’s 35 USC 101 Examination Guidance and Training Materials, Current Training, C. Information about Judicial Decisions, subsection 1. Subject Matter Eligibility Court Decisions, listed within the Federal Circuit decisions at Row# 49. Claim 1 of the ’877 patent read as follows: 1. A method in a computer system for preparing configuration settings for transfer from a source computing system to a target computing system, the method comprising: providing configuration information about configuration settings on the source computing system, the configuration information including a name and location of each configuration setting; generating an extraction plan that identifies con figuration settings to be extracted from the source computing system, the generating including providing a list of configuration set tings known to the source computing system and including identifying active configuration settings out of the provided list of configuration settings to be extracted from the source computing system; extracting the active configuration settings of the extraction plan from the source computing system, the extracted configuration settings being located using the provided configuration information; generating a transition plan that identifies con figuration settings to be transferred from the source computing system to the target computing system, the generating including providing active configuration settings of the extraction plan and including identifying from the active configuration settings of the extraction plan active configuration settings to be transferred from the source computing system to the target computing; and for each active configuration setting of the transition plan, retrieving the extracted configuration settings identified as active configuration settings of the transition plan; and transitioning one or more of the retrieved con figuration settings from a format used on the source computing system to a format used on the target computing system. Specifically, Tranxition was unpersuasive in arguing that migration or transitioning of computer settings from one computer to another, is a specific software-based solution to a computer-based problem and exceeds the abstract concept of migration. Thus, the solution was found by the Court to still be abstract. Here, similar to Tranxition’s migration or transitioning of computer settings from one computer to another, the current claims are managing compute resources , by transferring a first subset of the allocated first set of compute workers from the compute farm to the first client cloud system based on the second request and the monitored use of compute resources and a second subset of the allocated first set of compute workers from the compute farm to the second client cloud system based on the third request and the monitored use of compute resources (independent Claims 1,12,19), “ transfer a third subset of the allocated fifth subset of compute workers from the compute farm to the first client cloud system based on the fourth request and the monitored use of compute resources ” (dependent Claims 4,14), “ configure each of the set of compute workers to deallocate upon expiration of the expiration time period ”. (dependent Claims 7,17) etc. Thus here, the Examiner reasons that similar to Tranxition’s migration or transitioning of computer settings, the current transfer or configuration of computer workers from the compute farm to the client cloud system would also recite, describe or set forth the abstract exception, despite its execution, association and/or further narrowing to a computer environment. In a similar vein 1 , MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #2 states that a computer environment upon which abstract processes, (i.e. computer aided mental processes), are being performed still sets forth the abstract exception. Here, such computer environment is set forth by “ compute resources by a plurality of client cloud systems ”, “ compute cloud provider ”, “ compute workers ”, etc., while the computer aided metal processes executed in such computer environment are those of aided i. observation : “ monitor a use of compute resources by a plurality of client cloud systems ”; and ii. evaluation : “ calculate an aggregate compute resource schedule based on the monitored use of compute resources ” (Claims 1,12,19), “ calculate an expected number of” “workers to be used by the plurality of client cloud systems for each of a set of time duration blocks based on the aggregate compute resource schedule” (dependent Claims 3,13), “ periodically aggregate attributes associated with the monitored use of compute workers based on a time interval” (dependent Claims 5,15), “ wherein the second set of compute workers comprises a first number of compute workers, wherein the first subset of compute workers comprises a second number of compute workers, wherein the second number is less than the first number ” (dependent Claim 10), “ wherein the monitored use of compute resources comprises at least one of a set of statistics or a set of historical behavior attributes associated with each of the plurality of client cloud systems ” (dependent Claim 11) to arrive at iii. judgment on allocation and transfer of workers. However, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶2 is clear that processes that include i. observations , ii. evaluations , and iii. judgments , set forth the abstract exception with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C stating that: #1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer , # 2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment , and # 3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process, do not preclude the claims from recting, describing or setting forth the abstract exception. Thus here, there is a preponderance of legal evidence to show that the character of the claims as a whole is abstract, regardless of the computerized environment where they are executed. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because per Step 2A prong two , because the individual or combination of additional, computer-based elements are/is found to merely apply the already recited abstract exception, as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or narrow it to a technological environment or field of use, as tested per MPEP 2106.05(h), neither of which integrates said abstract exception into a practical application. Here, the degree of automation or computerization identified at the prior step not to preclude the claims from reciting, describing or setting forth the abstract exception. Now, even when more granularly testing the additional, computer-based elements at Step 2A prong two, such computer components, including the “ memory” and “ processor” of Claims 1,3-5,7, and associated “ means” 2 of Claim 19, represent mere invocation of computer components or machinery to perform tasks to receive , store , and transmit data [here request s], which per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶1, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Also, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii),(v) such additional computer elements merely monitor audit log data [here “ use of compute resources by a plurality of client cloud systems ” at independent Claims 1,12,19, “ the monitored use of compute resources comprises at least one of a set of statistics or a set of historical behavior attributes associated with each of the plurality of client cloud systems ” at dependent Claim 11] executed on a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii)]. Moreover, the “ transfer” of “ compute workers ” at Claims 1, 4,12,14,19 and the “ configure the first request to request a number of compute workers in excess of the expected number of compute workers allocated to be used by the plurality of client cloud systems for each of the set of time duration blocks ” at dependent Clams 3,13, and “ configure each of the set of compute workers to deallocate upon expiration of the expiration time period” at dependent Claims 7,17, are based on evaluations, manipulations, application or invocation of elements, which according to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) do not provide the technological details to demonstrate their underlining computer-based elements integrate it into a practical application. Additionally, or alternatively, the level of automation or computerization, identified above at Claims 1-20, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(h) vi., can also be argued as a narrowing of the abstract exception to a field of use or technological environment such as narrowing combination of collecting information and analyzing it, to certain results of collection and analysis, related to a technological environment characterized here by the compute resources ”, “ a cloud compute provider ”, “ compute workers ”, “ compute farm ” and client cloud systems throughout Claims 1-20, “ wherein each of the set of compute workers comprises an identical allocation of a number of CPU cycles, an amount of memory, and an expiration time period, wherein each of the set of compute workers deallocates upon expiration of the expiration time period” at dependent Claims 6,16, “ wherein the compute farm comprises a virtual private cloud (VPC) comprising the first set of compute workers” at dependent Claim 8, “ wherein the first client cloud system comprises a virtual private cloud (VPC) comprising the first subset of compute workers” at dependent Claim 9 etc. According to MPEP 2106.05(h) such narrowing of the abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, Examiner provided a preponderance of legal evidence showing that the automation or computerization elements above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Examiner follows MPEP 2106.05(d) II guidelines and carries over the above findings at MPEP 2106.05 (f) and/or (h) to submit that as shown above, the additional elements, merely apply the already recited abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and/or narrow it to a field of use or technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(h)]. For these same reasons, said computer-based additional elements also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, in light of MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or (h) as sufficient option(s) for evidence without having to rely on the well understood routine and conventional test of MPEP 2106.05(d). Based on such legal evidence conferred by the MPEP 2106.05(f),(h) tests above, the Examiner submits that the additional computer-based elements do not provide significantly more without having to rely on the well-understood, routine and conventional test of MPEP 2106.05(d). Yet, assuming arguendo, that further evidence would be required to demonstrate conventionality of the additional, computer-based elements, the Examiner would further point to MPEP 2106.05(d) to demonstrate that said additional elements remain well-understood, routine, conventional. In such case, Examiner would rely on the Original Specification as follows: - Original Specification ¶ [0097] reciting at high level of generality: Fig.9 is a diagram illustrating example aspects of a computer system 920 (e.g., a general-purpose computer system) on which aspects of systems and methods for intelligently allocating and delivering compute resources to various end users. The computer system 920 may correspond to the compute resource manager 310 in FIG. 3 or the compute resource manager 404 in Fig.4, e.g., as described herein - Original Specification ¶ [0104] reciting at high level: the systems and methods described herein may be implemented in hardware, software, firmware, or any combination thereof. If implemented in software, the methods may be stored as one or more instructions or code on a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Computer-readable medium includes data storage. By way of example, and not limitation, such computer-readable medium can comprise ram, rom, eeprom, cd-rom, Flash memory or other types of electric, magnetic, or optical storage medium, or any other medium that can be used to carry or store desired program code in the form of instructions or data structures and that can be accessed by a processor of a general purpose computer . - Original Specification ¶ [0105] last two sentences: In particular implementations, at least a portion, and in some cases, all, of a module may be executed on the processor of a general purpose computer. Accordingly, each module may be realized in a variety of suitable configurations, and should not be limited to any particular implementation exemplified herein . - Original Specification ¶ [0123] 1 st -2 nd sentences reciting: … various alternatives, modifications, variations, improvements, and/or substantial equivalents, whether known or that are or may be presently unforeseen, may become apparent to those having at least ordinary skill in the art . Accordingly, the example aspects, as set forth above, are intended to be illustrative, not limiting . - Original Specification ¶ [0123] last 6 sentences, reciting at high level of generality: “ When at least one processor is configured to perform a set of functions, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to perform the set of functions. Accordingly, each processor of the at least one processor may be configured to perform a particular subset of the set of functions, where the subset is the full set, a proper subset of the set, or an empty subset of the set. A processor may be referred to as processor circuitry. A memory / memory module may be referred to as memory circuitry. All structural and functional equivalents to the elements of the various aspects described throughout this disclosure that are known or later come to be known to those of ordinary skill in the art are expressly incorporated herein by reference and are encompassed by the claims. Moreover, nothing disclosed herein is dedicated to the public regardless of whether such disclosure is explicitly recited in the claims” All of this preponderance of legal and/or factual evidence demonstrate that the additional computer-based elements fail to provide anything significantly more. In conclusion, Claims 1-20, although directed to statutory categories (here “ apparatus ” or machine “at Claims 1-11, 19-20 and “ method” or process at Claims 12-18) they still recite, or at least set forth or describe the abstract idea (Step 2A prong 1), with their additional, computer-based elements not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong 2) or providing significantly more than abstract idea (Step 2B). Thus, Claims 1-20 are patent ineligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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. 07-16-aia AIA Claim s 1-6, 11-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention as disclosed by: Wang et al, US 20160124818 A1 hereinafter Wang . As per, Claims 1,12,19 Wang teaches “ An apparatus for managing compute resources, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to :” / “ A method of managing compute resources, comprising: ”/ “ An apparatus for accessing compute resources in a cloud environment, comprising: means for ” (Wang ¶ [0007]-¶ [0009], ¶ [0093]-¶ [0097]) - “monitor a use of compute resources by a plurality of client cloud systems”; (Wang ¶ [0035] 2 nd sentence: detect metrics characterizing operations of various servers 104-108. For example, ¶ [0062] 3 rd sentence: with respect to Figs.3A-4D, significant differences in loading times at specific servers are experienced. Another example at ¶ [0063] 3 rd -4 th sentences where in Fig.5C, the various loading times for all of standby servers of servers 502 are very similar, and are minimized to a great extent. For example, by way of contrast with the example of Fig.5B, loading times 518 and 520 for servers 507, 509, respectively, are now roughly equivalent. Wang ¶ [0075] 1 st -2 nd sentences: loading time of the corresponding standby server may then be updated (616). For example, loading time of standby server 108 may be updated within loading time 132. Also, ¶ [0091] noting at #11 total_loading time <- get maximum (min_heap). Wang ¶ [0037] 3 rd sentence: characterizing a loading time required by each standby server for all replicated tenants. Also, ¶ [0041] 2 nd sentence: sort a loading time of each tenant, from greatest to least loading time. ¶ [0053] 1 st sentence: Fig.3A illustrates examples of loading times required by each of the tenants 112-118 of Fig.1. ¶ [0054] loading time 302 corresponds to tenant 112 of Fig.1, tenant 114 is associated with loading time 304, the tenant 116 is associated with a loading time 306, and the tenant 118 is associated with a loading time 308. ¶ [0055] 2 nd sentence: as shown in the simplified example of Fig. 3B, the various loading times 302-308 are sorted into an order of 308, 302, 306 and 304. ¶ [0056] 2 nd -4 th sentences: replicated tenant dispatcher 140 may begin by dispatching the largest loading time 308 to a first standby server of the available standby servers, as illustrated in the example of Fig.4A. Then, the replicated tenant dispatcher 140 may proceed with dispatching a replicated tenant corresponding to the second highest loading time 302, by selecting a remaining server of the potential standby servers. Thus, in the example of Fig.4B, and corresponding to the example of Fig.1, the replicated tenant 112 r is dispatched to the standby server 106. ¶ [0067]- ¶ [0068] As described with respect to Fig.1, the tenant list 128 represents, a table describing each tenant and its associated server. In a specific implementation, the tenant list 128 also may include a loading time for loading each tenant's data). - “calculate an aggregate compute resource schedule based on the monitored use of compute resources” (Wang ¶ [0006] 6 th sentences: consider total loading time for all tenant data loaded onto standby servers or other metrics for evaluating efficacy of the placement techniques. Wang ¶ [0062] 5 th sentence: total loading time 514 for server 507 may be considerably greater than loading time 516 for any and all replicated tenants stored using standby server 509. Wang ¶ [0069] a minimum heap of loading times may be created with first N tenants of sorted tenant list (606). With reference to Figs.4A-4D, the subset of M tenants corresponding to total number N of available standby servers may be initially selected. In the example, N=2, so that first 2 of M=4 tenants are selected, and corresponding replicated tenants dispatched, in a round-robin fashion, among the N standby servers, in descending order loading times. Thus, in Fig.5A, first N=10 tenants of M tenants in list 510 may be selected from the sorted tenant list associated therewith and distributed in a round-robin fashion among remaining servers of servers 502 in descending order of loading times. ¶ [0070] 1 st -3 rd sentences: Following round-robin placement of first N tenants of the M tenants, a determination of whether a complete standby has been completed may be made (608). In other words, if all of M tenants have been assigned to a corresponding standby server, then process 600 is completed and resulting standby list and total loading time required may be provided (610). In other words, tenant placement selector 136 output the replicated tenant placement list 130 and total loading time list 132 of Fig.1. Wang ¶ [0088] 1 st sentence: noting another example where each ordered tenant may be dispatched to standby server with the minimum sum of loading time of all tenants that have been dispatched to this standby server. Further, ¶ [0090] last 3 sentences: The number of combinations can be calculated in this way: for the 3 users in 1 st machine, each of them will choose a machine as backup, so the number of combinations is 81. The same calculation can be used for users in the other 4 machines. Thus, the total number of combinations is 405. ¶ [0091] 1 st sentence: For a large number of severs and a large number of users, e.g., 1000 servers and 50 users on each sever, the total combinations would be 1000*(999̂ 50)=9.512*E152. ¶ [0092] In order to choose between the enumerated algorithm and the greedy algorithm, the equations used to calculate the total number of combinations may be utilized. Specifically, as long as the number of machine and number of users are given, the total number of combinations can be calculated) ; - “transmit, to a compute cloud provider, a first request for a first set of compute workers based on the aggregate compute resource schedule”; (Wang ¶ [0006] 1 st -2 nd , 5 th -6 th sentences: present description relates to situations in which a hardware server maintained and provided by computing resource provider is used to provide remote, virtual computing resources to a plurality of tenants. Thus such server may be referred to as multi-tenant server. particularly, techniques for optimal placements of such tenants of computing resources thereof within and among available standby servers are described. For example such placement techniques consider total downtimes experienced by a group of tenants as a whole, total loading time for all tenant data loaded onto standby servers, or other metrics for evaluating an efficacy of placement techniques. Wang ¶ [0002] 2 nd -3 rd sentences: Providers of such computing resources invest in large quantities thereof, and enter contracts with consumers to provide specified computing resources in a specified manner. In this way, providers bear capital costs associated with maintaining associated infrastructure, and consumers, also referred to as tenants, are largely freed from such capital costs (including potentially unpredictable maintenance costs), while still benefiting from flexibility in terms of a type, quantity, and quality of computing resources consumed over time. Wang ¶ [0003] For example, such a resource pro