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. This is a Non-Final Office Action Correspondence in response to U.S. Application No. 18/541,840 filed on 12/15/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 16 and 19 are independent claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 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- 11 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2015/0207661 A1, hereinafter “Kulkarni”) in view of Krasner et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 202 1 / 0373956 A1 , hereinafter “Krasner” ) . Regarding claim 1 , Kulkarni teaches a method, comprising: accessing, by a monitor executing on a computing device, a current resource utilization value of a computing resource used by a first application executing on the computing device, the current resource utilization value quantifying a utilization of the computing resource (Kulkarni ¶00 34 and ¶0065 ) , the first application having a priority application designation and being one of a plurality of applications executing on the computing device (Kulkarni ¶0066, i.e., the enterprise application) , at least one of the plurality of applications lacking the priority application designation (Kulkarni ¶0066, i.e., the user level applications) ; accessing, by the monitor, an application profile that identifies a resource utilization trigger condition that corresponds to the computing resource (Kulkarni ¶¶0053-0054). Kulkarni fails to explicitly teach determining, by the monitor, based on the current resource utilization value of the computing resource and the resource utilization trigger condition that corresponds to the computing resource, that the first application is in a non-preferred state; and in response to determining that the first application is in the non-preferred state causing, by the monitor, a resource utilization action in the computing device to cause an additional quantity of the computing resource to be available to the first application. However, in the same field of endeavor, Krasner teaches determining, by the monitor, based on the current resource utilization value of the computing resource and the resource utilization trigger condition that corresponds to the computing resource, that the first application is in a non-preferred state (Krasner ¶0110, i.e., “ Assume that a first application A is executing and is experiencing an increase in workload. The application A may currently be assigned one CPU and, based on its current workload and its corresponding resource policy 729a, the application A will need an additional 2 CPUs to meet its specified service level. ”) ; and in response to determining that the first application is in the non-preferred state causing, by the monitor, a resource utilization action in the computing device to cause an additional quantity of the computing resource to be available to the first application (Krasner ¶ ¶ 0111 -0112 , i.e., temporarily relocates the threads of applications X and Y to execute on the same CPU, such as CPU X. As a result, the shared CPU Y is now free and deallocated. Subsequently, CPU Y may be temporarily allocated for use by application A) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kulkarni by incorporating the teachings of Krasner . The motivation would be to provide techniques for resource allocation based on resource policy associated with the application, which could minimize adverse impact on workload processing for the application (Krasner ¶0112). As to claim 2 , Kulkarni as modified by Krasner also teaches he method of claim 1, wherein accessing the current resource utilization value of the first application comprises iteratively invoking an entry point of a process executing on the computing device that, when invoked, returns the current resource utilization value (Kulkarni ¶0034) . As to claim 3 , Kulkarni as modified by Krasner also teaches t he method of claim 2, wherein the current resource utilization value comprises one or more of a current memory utilization (Kulkarni ¶0065, i.e., memory utilization) , a current processor utilization, a current network utilization, and a current storage utilization. As to claim 4 , Kulkarni as modified by Krasner also teaches t he method of claim 1, wherein accessing the current resource utilization value of the first application further comprises accessing the current resource utilization value of a plurality of applications executing on the computing device including the first application (Kulkarni ¶0034) , each application of the plurality of applications having the priority application designation (Kulkarni ¶0035) . As to claim 5 , Kulkarni as modified by Krasner also teaches t he method of claim 1, wherein accessing, by the monitor, the application profile further comprises accessing the application profile from a plurality of application profiles, each application profile corresponding to an application having the priority application designation (Krasner ¶0112, i.e., resource policy for an application also indicates the application priority) . As to claim 6 , Kulkarni as modified by Krasner also teaches t he method of claim 1, wherein the application profile identifies, for the computing resource, a plurality of resource utilization trigger conditions, each resource utilization trigger condition identifying a resource utilization value and each resource utilization trigger condition corresponding to a different non-preferred state of a plurality of non-preferred states (Krasner ¶0111) . As to claim 7 , Kulkarni as modified by Krasner also teaches t he method of claim 6, further comprising: determining, by the monitor, based on the current resource utilization value of the computing resource and the plurality of resource utilization trigger conditions, that the first application is in an initial non-preferred state (Kulkarni ¶0065) ; and based on determining that the first application is in the initial non-preferred state, selecting, by the monitor, a first resource utilization action from a plurality of different resource utilization actions, each resource utilization action corresponding to one of the plurality of non-preferred states (Kulkarni ¶0066) . As to claim 8 , Kulkarni as modified by Krasner also teaches t he method of claim 1, wherein the computing resource comprises a random access memory (RAM) computing resource, and wherein the resource utilization trigger condition identifies a quantity of RAM (Kulkarni ¶0005, i.e., “ an enterprise application requires usage of some mega bytes of memory ”) , and wherein the current resource utilization value quantifies a current RAM utilization (Kulkarni ¶003 5 ) , and further comprising: determining, by the monitor, an available RAM of the computing device (Kulkarni ¶00034) ; identifying, by the monitor, a second application that lacks the priority application designation ( Kulkarni ¶00035) ; and wherein the resource utilization action comprises causing, by the monitor, the second application to be terminated (Kulkarni ¶00036) . As to claim 9 , Kulkarni as modified by Krasner also teaches t he method of claim 8, further comprising: determining, by the monitor, that the available RAM is less than an amount of RAM identified in the resource utilization trigger condition (Kulkarni ¶00034, i.e., the amount of memory resource is not available to the application ‘X’) ; and wherein the second application is caused to be terminated in response to determining that the available RAM is less than the amount of RAM identified in the resource utilization trigger condition (Kulkarni ¶00036, i.e., terminating the applications which are using the resources) . As to claim 10 , Kulkarni as modified by Krasner also teaches t he method of claim 1, wherein the computing resource comprises a RAM resource, and wherein the resource utilization trigger condition identifies a quantity of RAM (Kulkarni ¶0005) , and wherein the current resource utilization value quantifies a current RAM utilization (Kulkarni ¶003 5 ) , and further comprising: determining, by the monitor, an available RAM of the computing device (Kulkarni ¶0034, i.e., the required memory is not available) ; identifying, by the monitor, a second application that lacks the priority application designation (Kulkarni ¶0035) ; and wherein the resource utilization action comprises causing, by the monitor, a reduction in an amount of memory that is allocated to the second application (Krasner ¶011 2 , i.e., resource used by application with lower priority is reduced) , the amount of memory being less than a current amount of memory being used by the second application prior to the resource utilization action (Krasner Claims 1 and 3, i.e., resource type could be memory) . As to claim 11 , Kulkarni as modified by Krasner also teaches t he method of claim 1, wherein the computing resource comprises a processor utilization computing resource, and wherein the resource utilization trigger condition identifies an amount of available processor utilization value, and wherein the current resource utilization value quantifies a current processor utilization (Krasner ¶¶0111-0112) , and further comprising: identifying, by the monitor, a processor core of a plurality of processor cores of the computing device (Krasner ¶0111, i.e., the shared CPU Y is now free and deallocated) ; wherein the resource utilization action comprises causing, by the monitor, the processor core to be exclusively allocated to the first application (Krasner ¶0111, i.e., CPU Y may be temporarily allocated for use by application A) . Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni in view of Krasner, and further in view of Hill et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2004/0267897 A1, hereinafter “Hill”) . As to claim 12 , Kulkarni as modified by Krasner teaches t he method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the computing resource comprises a network bandwidth utilization computing resource, and wherein the resource utilization trigger condition identifies an amount of available network bandwidth, and wherein the current resource utilization value quantifies a current network bandwidth utilization . However, in the same field of endeavor, Hill teaches the computing resource comprises a network bandwidth utilization computing resource (Hill ¶0040) , and wherein the resource utilization trigger condition identifies an amount of available network bandwidth (Hill ¶0118) , and wherein the current resource utilization value quantifies a current network bandwidth utilization (Hill ¶0119) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kulkarni and Krasner by incorporating the teachings of Hill . The motivation would be to provide a distributed system for regulating resource usage (Hill Abstract). Kulkarni as modified by Krasner and Hill also teaches identifying, by the monitor, a second application that lacks the priority application designation (Kulkarni ¶00035) ; and wherein the resource utilization action comprises causing, by the monitor, the second application to utilize less network bandwidth (Hill ¶0086, i.e., optimizing dynamic allocation of shared bandwidth) . Regarding claim 16 , Kulkarni as modified by Krasner also teaches a computing device, comprising: a memory (Kulkarni ¶0077) ; and a processor device coupled to the memory (Kulkarni ¶0077) to perform the same method as recited in claim 1. Claim 16 is similarly rejected. Claim 17 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 6 and is similarly rejected. Claim 1 8 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 7 and is similarly rejected. Claim 1 9 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 1 and is similarly rejected. Claim 20 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 6 and is similarly rejected. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 13-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The features of the limitations included in claims 13-15 in combination with the other limitations recited in the context of their respective base claim(s) is allowable subject matter. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALEXANDER KHONG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7127 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 8am-5pm EST . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-40 85 . 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. /ALEXANDER KHONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168