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 .
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-16, and 18-23 have been examined.
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, 3-12, 14-16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, without significantly more. The claims recite a service processing method for bidding on resources, and a parallel device and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions, all directed to commercial interactions, a form of abstract idea in the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite specific limitations that would be indicative of the claimed invention being significantly more than an abstract idea, and do not otherwise apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as set forth below.
First, it is determined that the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03 (II).
The following 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis is performed in accordance with section 2106 of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (concerning Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Independent claim 1 recites a service processing method, and therefore falls within the statutory category of process, as do its dependents; independent claim 12 recites a device comprising a memory and one or more processors, and therefore falls within the statutory category of machine; independent claim 16 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and therefore falls within the statutory category of manufacture (Mayo test, Step 1). (Step 1, YES)
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. The claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One) as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong Two). See MPEP 2106.04.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, and specifically to commercial interactions under the field of organizing human activity without significantly more (Mayo test, Step 2A, Prong 1). The claims recite a method, device, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for performing a type of auction. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor is linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Mayo test, Step 2A, Prong 2). Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The claims do not recite applying the judicial exception with, or by the use of, a particular machine. The claims do not recite effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to different state or thing. The claims do not recite applying or using a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (Mayo test, Step 2A, Prong 2). (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO)
Next, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
There are no additional elements recited in the claims to raise them to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field (Mayo test, Step 2B). The detailed method, device, and computer-readable storage medium recited are found non-obvious over the prior art, but non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 is a different issue from eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The specific steps of the claims, such as receiving a plurality of service requests, processing the services corresponding to the plurality of service requests, bidding on resources, charging first and second prices to different users, etc., do not qualify, alone or in combination, to raise the claimed method and system to significantly more than an abstract idea.
The steps of independent claim 1 are largely non-technological, and do not require the use of specific technology; however, it is recited that each of the plurality of service requests indicates a cloud platform to process a service, and that the cloud platform continues processing. MP (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0167179) discloses (paragraph 16, emphasis added), “Conventionally, when a user registers with a cloud platform, they are assigned one or more virtual machines.” Hence, cloud platforms were well-understood, routine, and conventional technology prior to inventors’ Chinese priority date. Claim 1, as amended, recites that the plurality of services corresponding to the plurality of service requests comprise a batch processing service. Myers et al. (U.S. Patent 8,689,185) discloses (column 2, lines 1-8, emphasis added), “Given the complexity of today’s software applications, the business component often invokes the services of other software applications. Such applications are generally utilized to execute and/or facilitate the execution of actions ancillary to the overall business process. For example, business components are routinely required to enlist the services of a batch processing application for the purpose of processing accumulated data.” Hence, batch processing services were well-understood, routine, and conventional technology prior to inventors’ Chinese priority date.
Further, independent claim 1, as amended, recites, with the amendments proposed by the After Final amendment of March 31, 2026, and entered by the Request for Continued Examination of April 9, 2026, underlined:
allocating, by the cloud platform, a first resource in a first time period to the batch processing service, wherein the first time period is a time period in which resource usage of the cloud platform is lower than a threshold, wherein the resource usage is determined based on a deep learning model, and the first resource is idle in the first time period; and
processing, by the cloud platform, the batch processing service of at least one image object or video object by using the first resource within the first time period, wherein the resources comprise computer memory resources;
The earlier versions of these limitations (without the underlined word) were deemed by Examiner to be recited at a high level of abstraction. There is still some merit in this description, and to the extent that the method of claim 1 is more narrowly defined, the new limitations still do not require the use of technology that is more than well-understood, routine, and conventional. Cheng (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0099344) discloses (paragraph 24, emphasis added), “In addition, the computational model used by the analysis platform 30 can be, for example, a machine learning algorithm model, a neural network model, or a deep learning algorithm model, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto. Since operation principles of the machine learning algorithm model, the neural network model, or the deep learning algorithm model are well known to those skilled in the arts, therefore details thereof are not repeated hereinafter.” Hence, the deep learning model requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology.
Further, Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0134858) discloses (paragraph 4, emphasis added), “Meanwhile, conventional techniques detect defects of a product using a deep learning model related to image processing. For example, as conventional deep learning models related to image processing, there are an image classification model, an object detection model, and an object segmentation model.” Hence, applying processing to at least one image object or video object requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology; and Yang also provides further evidence that deep learning models were well-understood, routine, and conventional as of the date of Applicant’s Chinese priority.
Yet further, Avidan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0193592) discloses (paragraph 25, emphasis added), “Although not illustrated, it should be appreciated that the commerce server 110, the merchant computer 120 and the merchant computer 130 each include conventional components, such as a processor and a memory medium storing computer-readable instructions that are executable by the processor to perform various operations including those described herein.” Hence, computer memory, a form of memory resources, was well-understood, routine, and conventional well before the date of Applicant’s Chinese priority.
The limitations of claim 1, whether considered separately or in combination with each other, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO)
Claim 3, which depends from claim 1, recites that the first time period is determined based on a change status of the resource usage of the cloud platform during historical use, which is not in itself fundamentally technological. The limitation of claims 3, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 1, does not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 4, which depends from claim 1, recites that the plurality of services corresponding to the plurality of service requests comprise an online service, and that processing the plurality of services corresponding to the plurality of service requests comprises: allocating a second resource to the online service in real time, wherein a quantity of second resources is related to the first price; and processing the online service by using the second resource. Vlissidis et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0117552) discloses (paragraph 2, emphasis added), “Conventional online services typically require end-users to create accounts by inputting content such as name, email, messages self-introduction, pictures, etc.” Hence, online services were well-understood, routine, and conventional technology prior to inventors’ Chinese priority date. Otherwise, the operations of claim 4 are not in themselves technological. The limitations of claim 4, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 5, which depends from claim 1, recites that the plurality of users comprise a first user, whether the first user wins the bidding is related to a value of a first cloud service instance, the first cloud service instance is a cloud service instance used when a service corresponding to the first user is processed, the value of the first cloud service instance indicates a benefit brought by the first cloud service instance to the cloud platform and a benefit brought by the first cloud service instance to the first user, and the value of the first cloud service instance is related to at least one of a bid of the first user, resource usage of the first user, or a quantity of times that the first cloud service instance is invoked. Beyond perhaps the cloud platform, already analyzed with respect to claim 1 above, this is not specifically technological. Claim 6, which depends from claim 5, recites that the value of the first cloud service instance is directly proportional to the bid of the first user, the value of the first cloud service instance is inversely proportional to the resource usage of the first user, and the value of the first cloud service instance is directly proportional to the quantity of times that the first cloud service instance is invoked. These factors affecting the value of the first cloud service instance are not in themselves technological. The limitations of claims 5 and 6, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 7, which depends from claim 5, recites that the first price is related to the value of the first cloud service instance. This is not technological. Therefore, the limitations of claims 5 and 7, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 10, which depends from claim 5, recites that the first cloud service instance is a function, a container, or a virtual machine. It would not necessarily be technological for the first cloud service instance to be a function, for example. MP (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0167179) discloses (paragraph 16, emphasis added), “Conventionally, when a user registers with a cloud platform, they are assigned one or more virtual machines.” Hence, virtual machines were well-understood, routine, and conventional technology prior to inventors’ Chinese priority date. Therefore, the limitations of claims 5 and 10, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 8, which depends from claim 1, recites that the plurality of users comprise a first user, whether the first user wins the bidding is related to a bid of the first user and resource usage of the first user, and the first price is further related to the resource usage of the first user. None of this need be in itself technological. Therefore, the limitations of claim 8, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 9, which depends from claim 1, recites that the plurality of users comprise a first user, whether the first user wins the bidding is related to a bid of the first user and a quantity of times that a first cloud service instance is invoked, the first price is further related to the quantity of times that the first cloud service instance is invoked, and is a cloud service instance used when a service corresponding to the first user is processed. These operations need not be in themselves technological. Therefore, the limitations of claim 9, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 11, which depends from claim 1, recites that the bidding is triggered in at least one of the following manners: a time triggering manner, a resource usage triggering manner, or an event triggering manner. None of these need be in itself technological. Therefore, the limitation of claim 11, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 1, does not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO)
Independent claim 12 recites: “A device comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the device to: [perform operations corresponding to the steps of method claim 1]. Avidan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0193592) discloses (paragraph 25, emphasis added), “Although not illustrated, it should be appreciated that the commerce server 110, the merchant computer 120 and the merchant computer 130 each include conventional components, such as a processor and a memory medium storing computer-readable instructions that are executable by the processor to perform various operations including those described herein.” Hence, the recited device in itself merely uses well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The operations which the device is caused to perform are largely non-technological, but involve a cloud platform. As set forth above with regard to claim 1, based on the disclosure of MP (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0167179) in paragraph 16, cloud platforms were well-understood, routine, and conventional technology prior to inventors’ Chinese priority date. Further as set forth with regard to claim 1, based on the disclosure of Myers et al. (U.S. Patent 8,689,185) in column 2, lines 1-8, batch processing services were well-understood, routine, and conventional technology prior to inventors’ Chinese priority date. Further as set forth with regard to claim 1, based on the disclosure of Cheng (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0099344), in paragraph 24, the deep learning model requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. Yet further as set forth with regard to claim 1, based on the disclosure of Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0134858), in paragraph 4, the applying processing to at least one image object or video object requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. Yet further as set forth with regard to claim 1, based on the disclosure of Avidan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0193592), in paragraph 25, computer memory, a form of memory resources, was well-understood, routine, and conventional well before the date of Applicant’s Chinese priority. The limitations of claim 12, whether considered separately or in combination with each other, do not raise the claimed device to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO)
Claim 14, which depends from claim 12, recites that the first time period is determined based on a change status of the resource usage of the cloud platform during historical use, which is not in itself fundamentally technological. Hence, the limitations of claim 14, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 12, does not raise the claimed device to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 15, which depends from claim 12, recites that the plurality of services corresponding to the plurality of service requests comprise an online service, and that processing the plurality of services corresponding to the plurality of service requests comprises: allocating a second resource to the online service in real time, wherein a quantity of second resources is related to the first price; and processing the online service by using the second resource. As set forth above with regard to claim 4, based on the disclosure of Vlissidis et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0117552), in particular paragraph 2, online services were well-understood, routine, and conventional technology prior to inventors’ Chinese priority date. Otherwise, the operations of claim 15 are not in themselves technological. The limitations of claim 15, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 12, do not raise the claimed device to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO)
Independent claim 16 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by one or more processors of an apparatus, cause the apparatus to: [perform operations corresponding to the steps of method claim 1]. Avidan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0193592) discloses (paragraph 25, emphasis added), “Although not illustrated, it should be appreciated that the commerce server 110, the merchant computer 120 and the merchant computer 130 each include conventional components, such as a processor and a memory medium storing computer-readable instructions that are executable by the processor to perform various operations including those described herein. The computer-readable instructions can be stored on non-transitory computer-readable storage media of a conventional type, whether devices and/or materials.” Hence, the recited non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions in itself merely uses well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The operations which the device is caused to perform are largely non-technological, but involve a cloud platform. As set forth above with regard to claim 1, based on the disclosure of MP (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0167179) in paragraph 16, cloud platforms were well-understood, routine, and conventional technology prior to inventors’ Chinese priority date. Further as set forth with regard to claim 1, based on the disclosure of Myers et al. (U.S. Patent 8,689,185) in column 2, lines 1-8, batch processing services were well-understood, routine, and conventional technology prior to inventors’ Chinese priority date. Further as set forth with regard to claim 1, based on the disclosure of Cheng (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0099344), in paragraph 24, the deep learning model requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. Yet further as set forth with regard to claim 1, based on the disclosure of Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0134858), in paragraph 4, the applying processing to at least one image object or video object requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. Yet further as set forth with regard to claim 1, based on the disclosure of Avidan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0193592), in paragraph 25, computer memory, a form of memory resources, was well-understood, routine, and conventional well before the date of Applicant’s Chinese priority. The limitations of claim 16, whether considered separately or in combination with each other, do not raise the claimed non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO)
Claim 18, which depends from claim 16, recites that the first time period is determined based on a change status of the resource usage of the cloud platform during historical use, which is not in itself fundamentally technological. Hence, the limitation of claim 18, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 16, does not raise the claimed non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 19, which depends from claim 16, recites that the plurality of services corresponding to the plurality of service requests comprise an online service, and recites that the instructions, when executed, cause the apparatus to: allocate a second resource to the online service in real time, wherein a quantity of second resources is related to the first price; and process the online service by using the second resource. As set forth above with regard to claim 4, based on the disclosure of Vlissidis et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0117552), in particular paragraph 2, online services were well-understood, routine, and conventional technology prior to inventors’ Chinese priority date. Otherwise, the operations of claim 19 are not in themselves technological. The limitations of claim 19, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 16, do not raise the claimed non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 20, which depends from claim 16, recites that the plurality of users comprise a first user, whether the first user wins the bidding is related to a value of a first cloud service instance, the first cloud service instance is a cloud service instance used when a service corresponding to the first user is processed, the value of the first cloud service instance indicates a benefit brought by the first cloud service instance to the cloud platform and a benefit brought by the first cloud service instance to the first user, and the value of the first cloud service instance is related to at least one of a bid of the first user, resource usage of the first user, or a quantity of times that the first cloud service instance is invoked. Beyond perhaps the cloud platform, already analyzed with respect to claim 16 above, this is not specifically technological. Claim 21, which depends from claim 20, recites that the value of the first cloud service instance is directly proportional to the bid of the first user, the value of the first cloud service instance is inversely proportional to the resource usage of the first user, and the value of the first cloud service instance is directly proportional to the quantity of times that the first cloud service instance is invoked. These factors affecting the value of the first cloud service instance are not in themselves technological. The limitations of claims 20 and 21, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 16, do not raise the claimed non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 22, which depends from claim 20, recites that the first price is related to the value of the first cloud service instance. This is not technological. Therefore, the limitations of claims 20 and 22, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 16, do not raise the claimed non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 23, which depends from claim 16, recites that the plurality of users comprise a first user, whether the first user wins the bidding is related to a bid of the first user and resource usage of the first user, and the first price is further related to the resource usage of the first user. None of this need be in itself technological. Therefore, the limitations of claim 23, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 16, do not raise the claimed non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO)
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but recite non-obvious subject matter.
Claims 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but recite non-obvious subject matter.
Claims 16 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but recite non-obvious subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of non-obvious subject matter: Bai et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0109815) discloses (Abstract, emphasis added) “Embodiments of the present invention disclose a method, computer program product, and system for performing auctions of cloud based resources. A plurality of requests for a set of cloud based resources are received. A set of preferences associated with the plurality of requests are received. Data is received that is associated with the set of cloud based resources. The data includes an index of available resources, a cost value associated with one or more available resources of the available resources, and a rate of consumption value of available resources of the available resources. An auction technique is established for matching a subset of cloud based resources within the set of cloud based resources and an associated request of the plurality of requests. A match is determined between a subset of cloud based resources and a received request, the match is the output of the established auction technique.” However, Bai does not disclose that the auction technique and method include: charging, based on a first price, a user that wins bidding and that is in the plurality of users, wherein a value of the first price is related to bids of one or more users of the plurality of users, and the first price is lower than a bid of any user that wins the bidding and that is in the plurality of users; and charging, based on a second price, a user that loses the bidding and that is in the plurality of users, wherein the second price is higher than the first price, and the cloud platform continues processing on a service corresponding to the user that loses the bidding and that is in the plurality of users.
The article by Shi et al., “Continuous Double Action Mechanism and Bidding Strategies in Cloud Computing Markets,” is also noted as relevant; see in particular on the third page, the paragraph beginning, “The auction model supports one-to-many or many-to-one negotiations, between a service provider (sellers) and many consumers (buyers), and reduces negotiations to a single value (price).” However, neither Shi nor any other prior art of record supplies the deficiency of Bai.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, first, that the claims are not directed to any of the groups of abstract ideas identified by the USPTO, and states, “The claims are directed to calibrating a laser radar.” Examiner replies that if this were true, the claims might well be patentable, but the instant claims nowhere recite lasers, radar, or any forms of the words calibrate or calibration. Examiner presumes this sentence to have been inadvertently copied from arguments in another application. (This also applies to a later sentence, near the bottom of page 12 of 14, “In summary, the present Application demonstrates a distinct technical advantage in the practical field of laser radar system, and is integrated into a practical application.”) Applicant then argues that the claims are not directed to commercial interactions, but to allocating resources on a cloud platform.
Examiner replies that the claims are directed to commercial interactions, as shown by the clauses in claim 1 which begin, “charging, based on a first price, a user that wins bidding”, and “charging, based on a second price, a user that loses the bidding”, thus placing the method of claim 1 in the filed of commercial interactions, in particular, auctions. The claims also pertain to allocating resources on a cloud platform, and might be patent-eligible if they recited a technical solution to determining which programs should be allocated how much processing power and memory space, but that is not what is in fact recited.
Applicant then quotes from paragraphs [0024] and [0065] in the specification, and argues that these show a technical solution to a technical problem. In addition to the point that the claims do not incorporate features of the specification that are not recited as claim limitations, or otherwise invoked, paragraph [0065] recites, “dynamic charging is implemented through bidding,” and proceeds to state, “Therefore, the user has an opportunity to obtain more resources at same price, and costs are saved. In this way, a problem of unfair charging to the user is alleviated, and cost explosion is prevented.” If the invention as claimed and applied actually achieves this, there appears to be an improvement in conducting auctions for resources, rather than an improvement in technology.
Examiner again calls Applicant’s attention to court precedents which support the rejection of claims directed to abstract ideas such as commercial interactions, even when technical features are also recited:
Examiner further calls to Applicant’s attention the CAFC decision, Intellectual Ventures I LLC, Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), National Association, Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One, National Association, wherein the court ruled that certain patents claimed unpatentable abstract ideas, and were thus invalid, even though the claims at issue recited particular features for image processing, tailoring web pages to particular users, etc., and thus involved actual technology and recited more than purely abstract ideas as such. Examiner therefore maintains that his decision in the present case is in accordance with precedent.
There is also the decision in FairWarning IP, LLC, v. Iatric Systems, Inc., where claims directed to a method of detecting improper access of a patient’s protected health information (PHI) in a computer environment, and to a corresponding system, were found patent-ineligible, despite the recitation of computer technology, and of a computer environment such that the method could not be performed, and the system could not operate, without the use of computers.
In summary, Examiner replies that the claims are, in his best judgement, and in accordance with judicial precedent and USPTO guidance, not patent-eligible.
Incidentally, it is presumed that the Request for Continued Examination of April 9, 2026 had the intention and effect of entering the amendments and remarks of the After Final amendment filed March 31, 2026. Examiner left a telephone message for attorney Jun Li on May 21, 2026, requesting a response if any other amendment had been entered; having heard nothing back, Examiner proceeds with the present Office Action on the basis of his presumption.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yang et al. (U.S. Patent 11,200,694) is the patent issued on the application published as U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0134858, and used in making rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. Cheng (U.S. Patent 11,483,202) is the patent issued on the application published as U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0099344, and used in making rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. Kumar et al. (U.S. Patent 12,475,508) recites a cloud resources allocation system.
Kumar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2026/0038033) recites a cloud resources allocation system, and in particular recites, in paragraph 51, “For example CAS [cloud allocation system] 102 may bid on and request spare instances (e.g., computing time, computing power, virtual machine instantiations, etc.) from cloud 104. Cloud 104 may make available both on demand instances for reservation, and spare instances when there is additional unused computer capacity.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D ROSEN, whose telephone number is (571)272-6762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM-5:30 PM, M-F. Non-official/draft communications may be faxed to the examiner at 571-273-6762, or emailed to Nicholas.Rosen@uspto.gov (in the body of an email, please, not as an attachment).
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, Marissa Thein, can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/NICHOLAS D ROSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 May 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights