DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The following FINAL office action is in response to Applicant communication filed on 01/05/2026 regarding application 18/584,325. Claims 1, 8-11, 13 and 19-22 has been amended. Claims 3, 7, 12, 15-16 have been canceled. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 17-22 are pending and have been rejected.
Response to Amendments
2. Applicant’s amendment filed on 01/05/2026 necessitated new grounds of rejection in this office action.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of 13 filed on 01/05/2026, with respect to the previous Claim Objections for Claims 1, 3, 8-13, 15 and 19-22 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. Therefore, the previous Claim Objections for Claims 1, 3, 8-13, 15 and 19-22 have been withdrawn.
4. Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of 13 filed on 01/05/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) Claim Rejections for Claims 13-22 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) Claim Rejections for Claims 13-22 have been withdrawn.
5. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12 of 13, filed on 01/05/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 Claim Rejections for Claims 1-6, 11 and 13-19 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 Claim Rejections for Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 17-22 have been withdrawn. See Examining Claims with Respect to Prior Art Section shown below.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Arguments
6. Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 arguments, filed with respect to Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 17-22 have been fully considered, but they are found not persuasive (see Applicant Remarks, Pages 8-10 dated 01/05/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Argument #1:
(A). Applicant argues that Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 17-22 do not recite an abstract idea, law of nature of natural phenomenon under revised step 2a prong one of the 35 U.S.C § 101 analysis (see Applicant Remarks, Page 10, dated 01/05/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Applicant argues that “Independent Claim 1 now includes at least the following hardware elements: an enterprise data store, a cloud computing allocation tool including a computer processor, a memory, a communication port, an email server, a calendar server, and a workflow server. As a result, Applicant submits that it is not directed to a judicial exception without significantly more” (see Applicant Remarks, Page 10, dated 01/05/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
These claims particularly in Independent Claims 1, 13 and 19 recite receiving execution information (including financial cost data), applying allocation rules using organizational hierarchy, calculating allocation amounts, forecasting predicted costs and displaying and communicating results. These limitations describe: methods of organizing human activities (financial allocation and enterprise cost management), mathematical concepts (cost calculations and forecasting) and mental processes (evaluation and application of rules).
With respect to “Mathematical Concepts” category, Examiner refers Applicant to MPEP § 2106.04 (a) (2) (I) (C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping.” “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea).” Furthermore, see MPEP § 2106.05 (c): “For data, mere "manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’" has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).”
With respect to “Mental Processes” category, Examiner refers Applicant to MPEP § 2106.04 (a) (2) (III) (C): “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").” “For instance, the Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s Specification and determined that the claimed invention is described as concepts that are performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer (e.g., see Applicant’s Specification ¶ [0053-0055] noting at least “processor 1810” with “platform 1800” with “one or more cloud service environment devices”) or 2) in a computer environment (e.g., see Applicant’s Specification ¶ [0028] and ¶ [0033-0035] noting a “cloud computing environment”) or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool (e.g., see Applicant’s Specification ¶ [0054] noting “cloud allocation tool 1814”) to perform these concepts.” Also, Examiner refers Applicant to MPEP § 2106.04 (a) III (B): “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. The use of "physical aids" in implementing the abstract mental process, does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a) III C.
With respect to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” category, Examiner refers Applicant to MPEP § 2106.04 (a) (2) II, this grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people, and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(3). Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.
Thus, the mere inclusion of generic computer components does not negative the presence of an abstract idea. The claims recite a judicial exception. Applicant’s reliance on the presence of hardware elements does not overcome this determination, as the focus of the claims remains on an abstract idea. Examiner maintains that Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 17-22 are directed to abstract ideas under “Mental Processes” or “Mathematical Concepts” or “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” Groupings under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Step 2A Prong 1.
Argument #2:
(B). Applicant argues that Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 17-22 recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under revised step 2a prong two of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis (see Applicant Remarks, Page 10, dated 01/05/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Applicant argues that Independent Claim 1 now includes at least the following hardware elements: an enterprise data store, a cloud computing allocation tool including a computer processor, a memory, a communication port, an email server, a calendar server, and a workflow server. As a result, Applicant submits that it is not directed to a judicial exception without significantly more (see Applicant Remarks, Page 10, dated 01/05/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the additional elements of Independent Claims 1, 13 and 19 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under 35 U.S.C. § 101 step 2a prong 2. The recited hardware elements are: generic and conventional computing components, described at a high level of generality and used to perform routine functions such as: data storage (data store), data processing (processor/memory), communication (communication port, email server), scheduling (calendar server) and task coordination (workflow server). These elements do not improve computer functionality, do not improve cloud computing technology and do not provide a specific technical solution. Instead, they server as tools to implement the abstract idea and represent mere automation of business processes.
Moreover, even if the steps shown in Independent Claims 1, 13 and 19 of (1) “receiving data” (e.g., “receive execution information including a financial cost, the execution information associated with the big data workload batch processing job associated with an allocation tag, wherein the big data workload batch processing job was executed by the cloud computing environment for the enterprise” (see Independent Claims 1, 13 and 19) & “retrieving, by a computer processor of a cloud computing allocation tool, hierarchy information from an enterprise structure data store containing electronic records, each record including hierarchy information about organizations within the enterprise” (see Independent Claims 13 and 19) and (2) “transmitting data” (e.g., “transmitting, via a communication port coupled to the cloud computing allocation tool, data to provide a graphical interactive user interface display via a distributed communication network, the graphical interactive user interface including the allocation amounts” (see Independent Claims 13 and 19) & “display a combined financial cost for (i) a subset of the organization, and (ii) a period of time” (see Independent Claims 1, 13 and 19)) are evaluated as additional elements, these activities at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which are not indicative of a practical application, as noted in MPEP § 2106.05 (g)). The claims for example of Independent Claims 1, 13 and 19 when factoring the additional elements in view of the claim limitations both individually and as an ordered combination are interpreted as (1) being limited to a particular field of use or technological environment pertaining to monitoring and analyzing resource allocation amounts pertaining to batch processing jobs using a computer in a business enterprise environment (see MPEP § 2106.05 (h)) or (2) reciting mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or using a computer as a tool to “apply” the recited judicial exceptions (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements, including the recited hardware components, merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer technology and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, Examiner maintains that Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 17-22 do not recite additional elements to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and thus are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 step 2a prong 2.
Argument #3:
(C). Applicant argues that Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 17-22 recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions under revised step 2B of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis (see Applicant Remarks, Page 10, dated 01/05/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Applicant argues that “Independent Claim 1 now includes at least the following hardware elements: an enterprise data store, a cloud computing allocation tool including a computer processor, a memory, a communication port, an email server, a calendar server, and a workflow server. As a result, Applicant submits that it is not directed to a judicial exception without significantly more” (see Applicant Remarks, Page 10, dated 01/05/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response, Examiner refers Applicant to Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis section (e.g., Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101 section shown below) shown for step 2B particularly for Independent Claims 1, 13 and 19. The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions, because they are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exceptions. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP § 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in these claims with the abstract idea which include: (1) adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, (2) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and providing the results to the user on a computer, and (3) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the claims do not recite an inventive concept. The claims elements of data store, processor and memory, communication port, allocation tool, email, calendar and workflow servers are conventional. Their functions of storing data, processing data, communicating results and scheduling tasks are standard in enterprise computing systems. When considered as an ordered combination, these elements operate in a conventional manner, there is no non-conventional arrangement and these claims merely automates financial allocation and reporting. These claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited hardware components, individually and in combination, represent no more than activities previously known in the field. Furthermore, for Independent Claims 1, 13 and 19, even if the steps of “receiving data” & “retrieving data” & “transmitting data” are evaluated as additional elements, these activities at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which has been recognized as Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC), and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) ii - Receiving or Transmitting Data over a Network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
For Independent Claims 1, 13 and 19 when considering the additional elements both individually and as an ordered combination in view of the claim limitations, these claims as a whole are limited to: (1) a particular field of use or technological environment pertaining to monitoring and analyzing resource allocation amounts pertaining to batch processing jobs using a computer in a business enterprise environment (see MPEP § 2106.05 (h)) or (2) reciting mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or using a computer as a tool to “apply” the recited judicial exceptions (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The ordered combination of elements in the Dependent Claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, under Step 2B, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 17-22 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 17-22 are ineligible with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 17-22 are each focused to a statutory category namely a “system” or an “apparatus” (Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8-11), a “method” or a “process” (Claims 13-14 and 17-18) and a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” or an “article of manufacture” (Claims 19-22).
Step 2A Prong One: Independent Claims 1, 13 and 19 recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely (see in bold except via strikethrough):
“” (see Independent Claim 13);
“” (see Independent Claim 19);
“, trigger execution of a big data workload batch processing job, , associated resources are automatically deleted” (see Independent Claim 1);
“(b) an enterprise containing electronic records, each record including hierarchy information about organizations within the enterprise” (see Independent Claim 1);
“(c) a cloud computing allocation tool, ” (see Independent Claim 1);
“” (see Independent Claim 1);
“, cause the cloud computing allocation tool to” (see Independent Claim 1);
“receive execution information including a financial cost, the execution information associated with the big data batch processing job associated with an allocation tag, wherein the big data batch processing job was executed by the environment for the enterprise” (see Independent Claim 1);
“based on the received execution information, hierarchy information about organizations within the enterprise, and allocation rules, automatically calculate allocation amounts comprising allocated financial costs for the execution information among a plurality of the organizations” (see Independent Claim 1);
“display a combined financial cost for (i) a subset of the organizations, and (ii) a period of time” (see Independent Claim 1);
“automatically forecast a predicted cost for at least one organization based on prior allocation amounts” (see Independent Claim 1);
“ allocation tool to provide a graphical interactive display the graphical interactive display including the calculated allocation amounts” (see Independent Claim 1);
“ allocation tool, that automatically establishes communication links and transmits messages to organization communication addresses” (see Independent Claim 1);
“ allocation tool, that automatically schedules communications” (see Independent Claim 1);
“ allocation tool, orchestrates tasks associated with the automatically calculated allocation amounts” (see Independent Claim 1);
“establishing, by a transient infrastructure ” (see Independent Claims 13 and 19);
“triggering execution of a big data batch processing job” (see Independent Claims 13 and 19);
“running, by the transient infrastructure ” (see Independent Claims 13 and 19);
“automatically shutting down the transient infrastructure and deleting associated resources” (see Independent Claims 13 and 19);
“retrieving, , hierarchy information from an enterprise containing electronic records, each record including the hierarchy information about organizations within the enterprise” (see Independent Claims 13 and 19);
“receiving execution information including a financial cost, the execution information associated with the big data batch processing job associated with an allocation tag, wherein the big data workload batch processing job was executed by the environment for the enterprise” (see Independent Claims 13 and 19);
“based on the received execution information, hierarchy information about organizations within the enterprise, and allocation rules, automatically calculating allocation amounts comprising allocated financial costs for the execution information among a plurality of the organizations” (see Independent Claims 13 and 19);
“display a combined financial cost for (i) a subset of the organizations, and (ii) a period of time” (see Independent Claims 13 and 19);
“automatically forecast a predicted cost for at least one organization based on prior allocation amounts” (see Independent Claims 13 and 19);
“transmitting, via allocation tool to provide a graphical interactive display the graphical interactive display including the calculated allocation amounts” (see Independent Claims 13 and 19);
“automatically establishing, by an allocation tool, communication links and transmitting messages to organization communication addresses” (see Independent Claims 13 and 19);
“automatically scheduling, allocation tool, communications” (see Independent Claims 13 and 19);
“orchestrating, by allocation tool, tasks associated with the automatically calculated allocation amounts” (see Independent Claims 13 and 19).
Here, Independent Claims 1, 13 and 19 are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, allocating, and reporting financial cost data for cloud computing usage across an enterprise hierarchy, with forecasting and automated communications. Under Step 2A Prong 1, these claims recite abstract ideas falling into these judicial exception groupings:
“Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” Grouping of commercial interactions (including sales activities or behaviors; business relations) or alternatively as fundamental economic principles or practices, which involve cost allocation across organizational units, financial tracking and reporting, budgeting/forecasting and enterprise workflow coordination. These claims recite a method of allocating and managing financial costs within an enterprise, which falls within the category of commercial interactions, as it pertains to business relations and financial operations between organizational units. The claims also involve aspects of fundamental economic practices, such as cost allocation and forecasting.
“Mathematical Concepts” Grouping: These claims recite a judicial exception in the form of mathematical concepts, including the calculation of allocation amounts and the forecasting of predicted costs based on prior allocation data. These steps involve mathematical relationships and statistical analysis applied to financial information, which fall within the category of abstract ideas identified as mathematical concepts.
“Mental Processes” Grouping: These claims recite a judicial exception in the form of mental processes, as they include steps of evaluating execution information, applying allocation rules, and determining cost distributions among organization entities based on hierarchy information. These steps can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore fall within the category of abstract ideas identified as mental processes.
Therefore, in summary, these abstract idea limitations (as identified above in bold), under their broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as a whole, cover performance of their limitations as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” which pertains to (1) commercial interactions (including sales activities or behaviors; business relations) or alternatively as (2) fundamental economic principles or practices.
Additionally, or alternatively, these abstract idea limitations (as identified above in bold), under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as a whole, cover performance of their limitations as “Mathematical Concepts” which pertains to (3) mathematical calculations or (4) mathematical relationships and additionally or alternatively as “Mental Processes” which pertains to (5) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments) or (6) using pen and paper as a physical aid, in order to help perform these mental steps does not negate the mental nature of these limitations. The use of "physical aids" in implementing the abstract mental process, does not preclude these claims from reciting an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a) III C.
That is, other than reciting the additional elements of (e.g., “cloud computing” & “a computer processor” & “workload” & “calendar server” & “workflow server” & “email server” & “master script” & “a memory” & “distributed communication network” & “transient cluster management platform” & “transient infrastructure management platform” & “transient infrastructure” & “enterprise structure data store” & “graphical interactive user interface display” & “communication port”) nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being performed as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” which pertains to (1) commercial interactions (including sales activities or behaviors; business relations) or alternatively as (2) fundamental economic principles or practices and additionally or alternatively as “Mathematical Concepts” which pertains to (3) mathematical calculations or (4) mathematical relationships and additionally or alternatively as “Mental Processes” which pertains to (5) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments) or (6) using pen and paper as a physical aid.
Therefore, at step 2a prong 1, Yes, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 17-22 recite an abstract idea. We proceed onto analyzing the claims at step 2a prong 2.
Step 2A Prong Two: With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent Claims 1, 13 and 19 recite additional elements directed to: (e.g., “cloud computing” & “workflow server” & “calendar server” & “email server” & “cloud computing allocation tool” & “a computer processor” & “master script” & “a memory” & “distributed communication network” & “transient infrastructure management platform” & “transient infrastructure” & “enterprise structure data store” & “graphical interactive user interface display” & “communication port”). These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Furthermore, even if the steps shown in Independent Claims 1, 13 and 19 of (1) “receiving data” (e.g., “receive execution information including a financial cost, the execution information associated with the big data workload batch processing job associated with an allocation tag, wherein the big data workload batch processing job was executed by the cloud computing environment for the enterprise” (see Independent Claims 1, 13 and 19) & “retrieving, by a computer processor of a cloud computing allocation tool, hierarchy information from an enterprise structure data store containing electronic records, each record including hierarchy information about organizations within the enterprise” (see Independent Claims 13 and 19) and (2) “transmitting data” (e.g., “transmitting, via a communication port coupled to the cloud computing allocation tool, data to provide a graphical interactive user interface display via a distributed communication network, the graphical interactive user interface including the allocation amounts” (see Independent Claims 13 and 19) & “display a combined financial cost for (i) a subset of the organization, and (ii) a period of time” (see Independent Claims 1, 13 and 19)) are evaluated as additional elements, these activities at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which are not indicative of a practical application, as noted in MPEP § 2106.05 (g)).
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, at step 2a prong 2, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 17-22 are directed to the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements that integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: (As explained in MPEP § 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent Claims 1, 13 and 19 recite additional elements directed to: (e.g., “cloud computing” & “a computer processor” & “workload” & “calendar server” & “workflow server” & “email server” & “master script” & “a memory” & “distributed communication network” & “transient cluster management platform” & “transient infrastructure management platform” & “transient infrastructure” & “enterprise structure data store” & “graphical interactive user interface display” & “communication port”). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (computing environment) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification suggests that the claimed invention relies on nothing more than a general-purpose computer executing the instructions to implement the invention (see Applicant’s Specification ¶ [0053-0054]: “The platform 1800 comprises a processor 1810, such as one or more commercially available Central Processing Units (“CPUs”) in the form of one-chip or multi-chip microprocessors, coupled to a communication device 1820 configured to communicate via a communication network (not shown in FIG. 18). The communication device 1820 may be used to communicate, for example, with one or more cloud service environment devices.”)
Furthermore, for Independent Claims 1, 13 and 19, even if the steps of “receiving data” & “retrieving data” & “transmitting data” are evaluated as additional elements, these activities at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which has been recognized as Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC), and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) ii - Receiving or Transmitting Data over a Network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent Claims 2, 4-6, 8-11, 14, 17-18 and 20-22 recite additional elements directed to: (e.g., “a managed cluster platform” (see Dependent Claims 2 and 14) & “a managed, cloud-based data storage and analysis platform” (see Dependent Claims 2 and 14) & “an infrastructure support ticketing system” (see Dependent Claims 2 and 14) & “a third-party data service” (see Dependent Claims 2 and 14) & “on-premises platform” (see Dependent Claims 2 and 14) & “an enterprise cloud data management and data integration platform” (see Dependent Claims 2 and 14) & “an end-to-end data management platform” (see Dependent Claims 2 and 14) & “CPU resources” (see Dependent Claims 6 and 18) & “memory resources” (see Dependent Claims 6 and 18) & “data storage resources” (see Dependent Claims 6 and 18) & “Input Output resources” (see Dependent Claims 6 and 18) & “activity based costing logic” (see Dependent Claims 6 and 18) & “tag governance and enforcement logic” (see Dependent Claims 8 and 20) & “variance alert signal” (see Dependent Claims 9 and 21)), when considered individually and as an ordered combination (as a whole) with these claim limitations recite the same abstract idea(s) as shown in Independent Claims 1, 13 and 19 along with further steps/details that fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” Grouping which pertains to (1) commercial interactions (including sales activities or behaviors; business relations) or alternatively as (2) fundamental economic principles or practices and additionally or alternatively as “Mathematical Concepts” Grouping which pertains to (3) mathematical calculations or (4) mathematical relationships and additionally or alternatively as “Mental Processes” Grouping which pertains to (5) concepts performed in the human mind (including observations or evaluations or judgments) or (6) using pen and paper as a physical aid.
Dependent Claims 4-5, 10-11, 17 and 22 further narrow the abstract ideas, and are therefore still ineligible for the reasons previously provided in Steps 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B for Independent Claims 1, 13 and 19. Dependent Claims 2, 6, 8-9, 14, 18 and 20-21: Moreover, with respect to the additional elements of (e.g., “a managed cluster platform” (see Dependent Claims 2 and 14) & “a managed, cloud-based data storage and analysis platform” (see Dependent Claims 2 and 14) & “an infrastructure support ticketing system” (see Dependent Claims 2 and 14) & “a third-party data service” (see Dependent Claims 2 and 14) & “on-premises platform” (see Dependent Claims 2 and 14) & “an enterprise cloud data management and data integration platform” (see Dependent Claims 2 and 14) & “an end-to-end data management platform” (see Dependent Claims 2 and 14) & “CPU resources” (see Dependent Claims 6 and 18) & “memory resources” (see Dependent Claims 6 and 18) & “data storage resources” (see Dependent Claims 6 and 18) & “Input Output resources” (see Dependent Claims 6 and 18) & “activity based costing logic” (see Dependent Claims 6 and 18) & “tag governance and enforcement logic” (see Dependent Claims 8 and 20) & “variance alert signal” (see Dependent Claims 9 and 21)), as recited in Dependent Claims 2, 6, 8-9, 14, 18 and 20-21, these additional elements do not provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application under step 2a prong 2 and also do not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions under step 2B due to: (1) the claims as a whole are limited to a particular field of use or technological environment pertaining to monitoring and analyzing resource allocation amounts pertaining to batch processing jobs using a computer in a business enterprise environment (see MPEP § 2106.05 (h)) or (2) reciting mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or using a computer as a tool to “apply” the recited judicial exceptions (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The ordered combination of elements in the Dependent Claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, under Step 2B, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 17-22 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 17-22 are ineligible with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.
Examining Claims with Respect to Prior Art
9. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12 filed on 01/05/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 Claim Rejections for Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 17-22 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. Therefore, Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 17-22 are allowed over the prior art only. Please note that the following issues still remain: (1) 35 U.S.C. § 101 Claim Rejections for Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 17-22.
Regarding Independent Claims 1, 13 and 19, there is no disclosure in the existing prior art or any new art that either teaches and/or discloses the sequence operation of features either individually or in combination relating to:
- transmitting, via a communication port coupled to the cloud computing allocation too to provide a graphical interactive user interface display via a distributed communication network, the graphical interactive user interface display including the calculated allocation amounts;
- automatically establishing, by an email server, coupled to the cloud computing allocation tool, communication links and transmitting electronic messages to organization communication addresses;
- automatically scheduling, by a calendar server coupled to the cloud computing allocation tool, communications;
- orchestrating, by a workflow server coupled to the cloud computing allocation tool, tasks associated with the automatically calculated allocation amounts.
The closest prior arts are as follows:
#1) US PG Pub (US 2024/0103923 A1) – “Efficient Placement of Serverless Workloads on Transient Infrastructure on Policy-Driven Re-location”, hereinafter Regge, et. al;
#2) US PG Pub (US 2023/0185472 A1) – “Dynamic System Workload Placement in Cloud Infrastructures”, hereinafter Higginson, et. al;
#3) US PG Pub (US 2022/0284359 A1) – “Systems and Methods for Modeling and Analysis of Infrastructure Services Provided by Cloud Services Provider Systems”, hereinafter Lopopolo;
#4) US PG Pub (US 2013/0179371 A1) – “Scheduling Computing Jobs Based on Value”, hereinafter Jain, et. al.
Regarding the Regge reference, Regge teaches or suggests associated with an enterprise utilizing a cloud computing environment (see at least Regge: ¶ [0002] & [0022] & Figs. 11-12.) the following:
- (a) transient infrastructure management platform to establish a transient infrastructure in the cloud computing environment (see at least Regge: ¶ [0022] & ¶ [0048] & ¶ [0069]. Regge teaches that the transient infrastructure may be implemented—in particular, temporarily—as part of a cloud computing environment; one may add: operated by a cloud computing provider. Because of the temporary character of the transient infrastructure, it may be stopped, that is, terminated or interfered—at any point in time. Such transient infrastructures are provided by different public cloud computing providers under different names, like, for example, “spot instance” or “transient instance”. See also Regge at ¶ [0048]: The term ‘transient infrastructure’ may denote mainly virtual machines of virtual infrastructures being made available on an as-available basis from cloud computing providers. Thereby, the transient infrastructure components may be terminated by the provider with or without any pre-warning and/or delay. See also Regge at ¶ [0069]. Regge notes that a private cloud whereby the cloud infrastructure is operated solely by an organization. It may be managed by the organization or a third party and may exist on premise or off premise. See also Regge at ¶ [0106]. A management system for batch jobs in particular to manage regional scheduling jobs, freezing of jobs, relocation of jobs, unfreezing jobs.)
- wherein the transient infrastructure associated resources are automatically deleted (see at least Regge: ¶ [0022] & ¶ [0025-0027] & ¶ [0048]. Regge teaches that the transient infrastructure may be implemented—in particular, temporarily—as part of a cloud computing environment; one may add: operated by a cloud computing provider. Because of the temporary character of the transient infrastructure, it may be stopped, that is, terminated or interfered—at any point in time. See also Regge at ¶ [0025]: One or more resources required for the execution of the workload in the transient infrastructure may be removed by an unforeseeable event. This may, for example, be the case if the provider may decide, for example, by an automated system—to provide the resources to a client (that is, customer) because of his contractual conditions (he simply pays more) or for technical reasons, for example, because the required resource became unavailable in another region (for example, system or network error) and the provider must fulfil the request of the other clients due to before agreed SLA definitions. See also Regge at ¶ [0027]: The “reclaim-scheduled message” may be initiated by the provider just before terminating a transient VM in use by another user. See also Regge at ¶ [0031]: The analysis can determine what percentage of transient VMs might succeeded to the end before being terminated and forced to another transient VM. See also Regge at ¶ [0048]: The transient infrastructure components may be terminated by the provider with or without any pre-warning and/or delay. See also Regge at ¶ [0087]: The transient VM CRUD (create-read-update-delete) controller 622 becomes active.)
However, neither Regge, et. al and the other prior art of record do not reach or render obvious the sequence of limitations directed to:
- transmitting, via a communication port coupled to the cloud computing allocation too to provide a graphical interactive user interface display via a distributed communication network, the graphical interactive user interface display including the calculated allocation amounts;
- automatically establishing, by an email server, coupled to the cloud computing allocation tool, communication links and transmitting electronic messages to organization communication addresses;
- automatically scheduling, by a calendar server coupled to the cloud computing allocation tool, communications;
- orchestrating, by a workflow server coupled to the cloud computing allocation tool, tasks associated with the automatically calculated allocation amounts.
Regarding the Higginson reference, Higginson teaches or suggests
- run a master script (see at least Higginson: ¶ [0088]. Higginson teaches that to gather system data, the migration infrastructure 402 may run one or more scripts, select one or more databases, establish one or more communication pipes to the one or more databases, log into the one or more databases for command line access via a transport layer by, for example, IP address and SSH, and pull system data from the one or more databases. See also Higginson: Figs. 5-6 & ¶ [0096]. Higginson notes that the systems may be cloud agnostic, homogenous to cloud vendor, and/or may be implemented on any architecture or configuration—remote, on-premises, etc. regardless of cloud configuration as long as there is a source and a target.)
However, neither Higginson, et. al and the other prior art of record do not reach or render obvious the sequence of limitations directed to:
- transmitting, via a communication port coupled to the cloud computing allocation too to provide a graphical interactive user interface display via a distributed communication network, the graphical interactive user interface display including the calculated allocation amounts;
- automatically establishing, by an email server, coupled to the cloud computing allocation tool, communication links and transmitting electronic messages to organization communication addresses;
- automatically scheduling, by a calendar server coupled to the cloud computing allocation tool, communications;
- orchestrating, by a workflow server coupled to the cloud computing allocation tool, tasks associated with the automatically calculated allocation amounts.
Regarding the Lopopolo reference, Lopopolo teaches or suggests the following:
- displaying a combined financial cost for (i) a subset of the organizations and (ii) a period of time (see at least Lopopolo: ¶ [0043] & ¶ [0052]. With this structure, IT teams can economically incentivize the adoption of an upgraded continuous integration (CI) cluster by offering it to the rest of the organization at a loss. In embodiments, commerce platform system(s) 110 may rely on showback reporting so teams have observability into their total impact on cloud spend. See also Lopopolo at Fig. 6 and ¶ [0052]: “The graphical user interface 600 may represent a scorecard (e.g., a user interface generated and displayed to the one or more users, posted to an intranet web page, a metrics platform accessible to employees of the commerce platform system(s) 110, etc.) detailing cloud spend for services and/or teams so that they can independently optimize their product. One embodiment of a scorecard user interface 600 generated by CSP analysis system 120 is a monthly snapshot 602 of how a selected team 604 (e.g., team_x) and their associated usage of an exemplary set of different products at CSP system(s) 180 consume infrastructure services (e.g., in the snapshot generated on May 1, 2019, ec2 server instances attributable to team_x as determined from the graph analysis discussed herein totaled $10,582).”
- automatically forecast a predicted cost for at least one organization based on prior allocation amounts (see at least Lopopolo: ¶ [0024] & ¶ [0041]. Lopopolo teaches that different teams of the commerce platform, such as infrastructure engineers using the model to identify inefficient areas of infrastructure for improvement based on cost/performance, product engineers using the model to optimize feature design and development to improve margin, finance teams using the model to optimize financial predictability, forecasting, and capacity modeling, sales teams to optimize deal pricing based on past modeling and/or predicted modeling, and leadership within the commerce platform using the model to identify a return on investment of reach product when deciding how to invest in future growth, etc. See also Lopopolo notes at ¶ [0024] that “when it is identified by CSP analysis system 120 what the products of commerce platform system(s) 110 cost to serve and support customer system(s) 170 using the paid resources of CSP system(s) 180, different teams associated with the commerce platform can optimize their operations, including: (1) finance teams can accurately model financial forecasts, allocate costs, and establish capacity planning for a cloud fleet.”).
However, neither Lopopolo, et. al and the other prior art of record do not reach or render obvious the sequence of limitations directed to:
- transmitting, via a communication port coupled to the cloud computing allocation too to provide a graphical interactive user interface display via a distributed communication network, the graphical interactive user interface display including the calculated allocation amounts;
- automatically establishing, by an email server, coupled to the cloud computing allocation tool, communication links and transmitting electronic messages to organization communication addresses;
- automatically scheduling, by a calendar server coupled to the cloud computing allocation tool, communications;
- orchestrating, by a workflow server coupled to the cloud computing allocation tool, tasks associated with the automatically calculated allocation amounts.
Regarding the Jain reference, Jain teaches or suggests the following:
- receive execution information associated with the big data workload batch processing job that was executed by the cloud computing environment for the enterprise (see at least Jain: ¶ [0014-0015] & ¶ [0163-0164]. Jain teaches that users (e.g., customers) may specify an overall amount of resources (e.g., servers or virtual machine hours) which they request for their job, as well as an amount the user may be willing to pay for these resources as a function of the completion time of the job. For example, a particular user may specify a request for a total of 1,000 server hours, and a willingness to pay $100 if these resources are delivered to the user no later than a deadline (e.g., due time) of 5 pm, and none if the resources are delivered after 5 pm. The system (e.g., the cloud system) may determine an allocation of resources according to the jobs submitted, the users' willingness to pay, and the system's capacity constraints. As users may try to game the system by misreporting either their value or their deadline, and thus potentially increasing their utility, example techniques discussed herein may incentivize the users to report their true values (or willingness to pay) for different job completion dates (times). See also Jain at ¶ [0163-0164] denoting a cloud computing environment that provides easy accessible of computing resources of variable size and capabilities.).
However, neither Jain et. al and the other prior art of record do not reach or render obvious the sequence of limitations directed to:
- transmitting, via a communication port coupled to the cloud computing allocation too to provide a graphical interactive user interface display via a distributed communication network, the graphical interactive user interface display including the calculated allocation amounts;
- automatically establishing, by an email server, coupled to the cloud computing allocation tool, communication links and transmitting electronic messages to organization communication addresses;
- automatically scheduling, by a calendar server coupled to the cloud computing allocation tool, communications;
- orchestrating, by a workflow server coupled to the cloud computing allocation tool, tasks associated with the automatically calculated allocation amounts.
Therefore, when taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor do the available art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modification would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DERICK HOLZMACHER whose telephone number is (571) 270-7853. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 AM – 6:30 PM 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, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-8853.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DERICK J HOLZMACHER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625A
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights