DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to communication filed 12/23/2025.
The instant application having application No. 18/568,843 filed on December 11, 2023, is a continuation of PCT/JP2022/020273 filed on May 13, 2022.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 17 are amended, claim 3 is canceled. Accordingly, claims 1-2, and 4-17 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
(A). Regarding claim objections: Applicant’s amendments to the claims appropriately addressed the objections to claims 2-12, the objections are withdrawn.
(B). Regarding 101 abstract idea rejections: The amended claims are still abstract idea without significantly more, the rejections are maintained.
(C). Regarding art rejections: In regards to pending claims, art rejections are withdrawn because identified allowable subject matter original claim 3 is incorporated into independent claims.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
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 1-2, and 4-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1 (Currently Amended), This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a system claim under Step 1.
Under Prong 1, Step 2A:
However, the limitations of claim 1,
“constructing each of a plurality of applications on any one of a plurality of execution platforms;
identifying, for each of the plurality of the execution platforms, an actual result value of a resource usage status on the each of the plurality of the execution platforms;
identifying, for each of a plurality of replacement patterns, based on the actual result value, a leveling index value indicating, in a case in which at least one of the applications has been replaced onto another one of the execution platforms, at least one of a degree of leveling of a resource usage status on the another one of the execution platforms of a replacement destination or a degree of leveling of resource usage statuses among the plurality of the execution platforms;
determining, based on the leveling index value identified for each of the plurality of the replacement patterns, a replacement pattern relating to replacement to be executed; and
replacing at least one of the applications based on the determined replacement pattern, wherein the identifying the leveling index value comprises identifying the leveling index value based on a degree of improvement in the leveling of the resource usage status on the each of the execution platforms of the replacement destination and a degree of improvement in the leveling of the resource usage status on the one of the execution platforms of a replacement source.”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. human can manually construct applications as defined in the claim element, can manually identify actual result value of a resource usage status as defined in the claim element, can manually identify a leveling index value as defined in the claim element, can manually determine a replacement pattern as defined in the claim element, and can manually replace one of the applications based on the determined replacement pattern. “wherein the identifying the leveling index value comprises identifying the leveling index value based on a degree of improvement in the leveling of the resource usage status on the each of the execution platforms of the replacement destination and a degree of improvement in the leveling of the resource usage status on the one of the execution platforms of a replacement source” further defines the identifying processes, and are the same mental processes as the identifying process. Thus these claim limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A
Under Prong 2, Step 2A:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements
“a system”, “at least one processor”, “at least one memory device” and “execution platforms”.
These elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. 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.
Under Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “a system”, “at least one processor”, “at least one memory device” and “execution platforms”, that are mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, thus, are not an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claim 17 (Currently Amended), it is directed to a method that is disclosed in claim 1, and therefore, recites the same abstract idea as claim 1. Please refer to the analysis for claim 1 above which covers all limitations of claim 17.
With respect to claim 2 (Currently Amended), “the operations further comprise selecting an application to be replaced from among the plurality of the applications,
wherein the identifying the leveling index value comprises identifying the leveling index value indicating, in a case in which the application to be replaced has been replaced onto each of the execution platforms different from one of the execution platforms on which the application is being executed, at least one of the degree of leveling of the resource usage status on the each of the execution platforms of the replacement destination or the degree of leveling of the resource usage statuses among the plurality of the execution platforms,
wherein the determining comprises determining the each of the execution platforms of the replacement destination for the application to be replaced based on the leveling index value in the case in which the application to be replaced has been replaced onto the each of the execution platforms different from the one of the execution platforms on which the application is being executed, and
wherein the replacing comprises replacing the application to be replaced onto the determined each of the execution platforms.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually perform the selecting, the identifying, the determining, and the replacing processes as defined in the claim. The execution platforms are mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 4 (Currently Amended), “wherein the identifying the actual result value comprises identifying a total sum of actual result values of resource usage statuses in respective applications executed on the each of the execution platforms as the actual result value of the resource usage status on the each of the execution platforms.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually perform the identifying process as defined in the claim. The execution platforms are mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 5 (Currently Amended), “the operations further comprise identifying, for an addition-scheduled execution platform on which an application is to be added among the plurality of the execution platforms, a predicted value of the resource usage status on the addition-scheduled execution platform in a case in which the application has been constructed on the addition-scheduled execution platform,
wherein the identifying the leveling index value comprises identifying the leveling index value based on the identified predicted value.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually perform the identifying process as defined in the claim. The execution platforms are mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 6 (Currently Amended), “wherein the identifying the predicted value comprises identifying the predicted value based on the actual result value of the resource usage status in a running application of the same type as the type of the application to be added.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually perform the identifying process as defined in the claim.
With respect to claim 7 (Currently Amended), “wherein the identifying the leveling index value comprises identifying the leveling index value based on predicted values of the resource usage statuses for respective period types.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually perform the identifying process as defined in the claim.
With respect to claim 8 (Currently Amended), “wherein the identifying the leveling index value comprises identifying the leveling index value based on, in the case in which at least one of the applications has been replaced onto another one of the execution platforms, the predicted values of the resource usage statuses for the respective period types on the another one of the execution platforms of the replacement destination.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually perform the identifying process as defined in the claim. The execution platforms are mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 9 (Currently Amended), “wherein the identifying the leveling index value comprises identifying the leveling index value indicating a variation in the predicted values for the respective period types, and
wherein the determining comprises determining the replacement pattern relating to the replacement to be executed based on smallness of the variation indicated by the leveling index value.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually perform the identifying and the determining processes as defined in the claim.
With respect to claim 10 (Currently Amended), “wherein the identifying the leveling index value comprises identifying the leveling index value indicating a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of the predicted values for the respective period types, and
wherein the determining comprises determining the replacement pattern relating to the replacement to be executed based on smallness of the difference indicated by the leveling index value.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually perform the identifying and the determining processes as defined in the claim.
With respect to claim 11 (Currently Amended), “wherein the identifying the leveling index value comprises identifying the leveling index value indicating, in the case in which at least one of the applications has been replaced onto another one of the execution platforms, a variation in the predicted values of the resource usage statuses among the plurality of the execution platforms, and
wherein the determining comprises determining the replacement pattern relating to the replacement to be executed based on smallness of the variation indicated by the leveling index value.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually perform the identifying and the determining processes as defined in the claim. The execution platforms are mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 12 (Currently Amended), “wherein the identifying the leveling index value comprises identifying the leveling index value indicating, in the case in which at least one of the applications has been replaced onto another one of the execution platforms, a total sum of absolute values of differences between the predicted values of the resource usage statuses on the respective plurality of the execution platforms and a predetermined value, and
wherein the determining comprises determining, based on smallness of the total sum of the absolute values of the differences indicated by the leveling index value, the replacement pattern relating to the replacement to be executed.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually perform the identifying and the determining processes as defined in the claim. The execution platforms are mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 13, “wherein each of the execution platforms is a Kubernetes cluster.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claim 14, “wherein each of the applications is an application included in a communication system.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claim 15, “wherein each of the applications is a network function.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claim 16, “wherein the resource usage status is at least one of a usage status of a CPU, a usage status of a memory, a usage status of a storage, a usage status of a network, or a usage status of electric power.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 101 abstract idea rejections filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At p7 last 4 to p8 first paragraphs of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “amended claim 1 is now directed to a statutory patent- eligible subject matter for at least the following reasons:”. Particularly, at p7 last to p8 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “By this Amendment, claim 1 has been amended to incorporate the original claim 3's "dual- sided improvement" limitation (i.e., the index is based on both destination-platform and source-platform improvement in leveling), now reciting: "the identifying the leveling index value comprises identifying the leveling index value based on a degree of improvement in the leveling of the resource usage status on the each of the execution platforms of the replacement destination and a degree of improvement in the leveling of the resource usage status on the one of the execution platforms of a replacement source."”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, the features of the original claim 3 are about identifying leveling index values, which is mental process, e.g. human can manually identify the leveling index values. The improvement is about leveling of the resource usage, the computing resource itself (e.g. the execution platforms) is not affected. Thus, incorporating original claim 3 into claim 1 does not make claim 1 patent eligible.
At p8 second paragraph under title “Step 2A: Claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea; instead, claim 1 provides a targeted technical solution, helping solve a specific real-world problem in communication system resource management”. Particularly, at the first two paragraphs under the title of “Step 2A…”, Applicant argued that “This technical feature ensures an overall improvement in resource utilization for the entire communication system.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as explained above, the technical feature of the original claim 3 is mental process, i.e. abstract ideas. The abstract ideas may result in improvement in resource utilization, but the improvement in resource utilization does not affect the computing resource itself (e.g. execution platforms), i.e. the technology is not affected.
At the third paragraph under the title of “Step 2A…”, Applicant argued that “The "leveling index" is not a generic formula; the feature is calibrated to communication- specific resource data (e.g., CPU, memory, network, power) from network functions (e.g., 5G DU/CU/UPF) and tied to real-world usage patterns (e.g., weekday/holiday time slots). The recited leveling index is inherently linked to virtualized communication infrastructure, rather than an abstract calculation.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, although "leveling index" is not a generic formula, it is some kind of mathematical concept, and human can manually perform the identifying/calculating leveling index process. The leveling index is tied to real-world usage patterns, and is not an abstract calculation, but it is a calculation, i.e. some kind of mathematical concept, and human can manually perform the calculation, thus, it is abstract idea of mental processes.
At p8 under title “Step 2B: …” to p9 first three paragraphs of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “Amended claim 1 transforms any abstract idea into a concrete, tangible, and integrated technical solution by reciting the following features:” Particularly, at first paragraph under the title “Step 2B: …”, Applicant argued that “The leveling index requires analyzing two platforms (replacement source and replacement destination), integrating real-time resource data of the two platforms to avoid trade-offs-this constraint is unique to distributed communication systems.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, analyzing data is mental process, e.g. human can manually analyze data from two platforms, and it does not constitute an inventive concept.
At second paragraph under the title “Step 2B: …”, Applicant argued that “The solution depends on metrics collected by specialized tools (e.g., sidecar containers, Prometheus) that reflect dynamic demands of communication services (e.g., peak traffic) and align with 3GPP KPIs.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, collecting metrics is like data gathering which is recognized as well-understood, routine and conventional activity, see MPEP section 2106.05(d), II, thus, it does not constitute an inventive concept.
At third paragraph under the title “Step 2B: …”, Applicant argued that “Application replacement helps achieve balanced resource utilization across data centers, reduces latency, and lowers operational costs-directly enhancing the functionality of mobile communication networks.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, balanced resource utilization may result in balanced workload across data centers, but the functionality of the mobile communication networks is not affected, i.e. the mobile communication networks function the same as they would before the instant case. Thus, communication or computing technology is not affected, and it does not constitute an inventive concept.
At fourth paragraph under the title “Step 2B: …”, Applicant argued that “Execution platforms include Kubernetes clusters (a non-limiting example of implementation as set forth in the specification) and applications encompass network functions. The replacement process leverages container management tools (e.g., Helm) to avoid service disruption, achieving deep integration with virtualized communication infrastructure.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, the execution platforms, network, container management tools, and virtualized communication infrastructure are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. Thus, these elements do not constitute an inventive concept. Further, Examiner would like to point out that these elements are not all recited in the claims, the claims are read in light of the spec, but the limitations of the spec are not read into claims.
At p9 fourth paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “In summary, amended claim 1 links the "leveling index" to a specific technical problem, adopts communication domain-specific data and tools, delivers measurable network performance improvements, and integrates with specialized hardware/software.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as explained above, identifying/calculating "leveling index" may involve collecting metrics from different entities, but collecting metrics is like data gathering which is recognized as well-understood, routine and conventional activity, see MPEP section 2106.05(d), II. The identified level index may help balance resource utilization, but the resource itself (e.g. execution platforms) is not affected.
At p9 fifth paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “For at least the reasons discussed above, amended claim 1 is directed to a statutory patent- eligible subject matter. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1 are respectfully requested.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as set forth in the office action, and as explained above, amended claim 1 is still abstract idea without significantly more, the 101 abstract idea rejections are maintained.
At p9 6-7 paragraphs of the Remarks, Applicant argued that all other claims are directed to a statutory patent- eligible subject matter for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as explained above, amended claim 1 is still abstract idea without significantly more, the 101 abstract idea rejections are maintained. The 101 abstract idea rejections to all other claims are similarly maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Pavlin et al. US 11593165 B2 teaches Resource-usage Notification Framework In A Distributed Computing Environment.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zengpu Wei whose telephone number is 571-270-1302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets, can be reached on 571-272-3338. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/ZENGPU WEI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2197
/BRADLEY A TEETS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2197