Details
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 1-19 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 11, 13, and 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horvitz et al (Pub. No.: US 2010/0332262 A1) in view of Negron-Moreno et al (Pub. No.: US 2025/0166033 A1) and Lian et al (Pub. No.: US 2015/0379542 A1).
As per claim 1, Horvitz discloses a method comprising: - receiving, at a compute exchange (resource broker), and from a compute resource buyer of a plurality of compute resource buyers, a buy order (Horvitz, Fig 8, paragraph 0084, wherein at block 802, the resource broker 110 may receive a computing task from a customer 104. In various embodiments, the computing task may be any task that is suitable for performance using cloud computing. For example, but not as a limitation, the computing task may be the optimization of a database by at least one of cloud computing providers 102(1)-102(n)); - receiving, at the compute exchange, a sell order comprising a seller-specified offered price that is made available to the compute exchange one or more compute resource seller from a plurality of compute resource sellers (Horvitz, Fig 8, paragraph 0086, wherein at decision block 804-806, the resource broker 110 may decide whether to solicit bids from a plurality of cloud computing providers 102(1)-102(n) for the performance of the computing task. In various embodiments, the bids may be for the lowest cost for the performance of the computing. At decision block 806, the resource broker 110 may determine whether one or more bids are received from the plurality of cloud computing providers 102(1)-102(n) for the performance of the computing task. At least one of the received bids can be the received sell order); - matching, at the compute exchange, the buy order from the compute resource buyer with the sell order from the one or more compute resource seller (Horvitz, Fig 8, paragraph 0087, wherein at decision block 808, the resource broker 110 may perform the computing task using the one of cloud computing providers 102(1)-102(n) that submitted the most advantageous bid for the customer. For example, but not as a limitation, the most advantageous bid may be the lowest cost bid for the performance of the computing task, the bid for the shortest latency response time during the performance of the computing task, or a bid for the shortest completion time for the computing task; wherein the selecting of the most advantageous bid can be the matching as claimed); and - initiating, by the compute exchange, a process to enable a portion of the workload from the compute resource buyer to be processed by the compute resources from the chosen compute resource seller at the price (Horvitz, Fig 8, paragraph 0087, wherein block 808, the resource broker 110 may perform the computing task using the one of cloud computing providers 102(1)-102(n) that submitted the most advantageous bid for the customer. For example, but not as a limitation, the most advantageous bid may be the lowest cost bid for the performance of the computing task, the bid for the shortest latency response time during the performance of the computing task, or a bid for the shortest completion time for the computing task). Horvitz does not explicitly disclose that - the buy order including an ask price specifying a maximum price that the compute resource buyer is willing to pay, - the seller-specified offered price is made available to the compute exchange independently of the buy order, and- the matching is based on the ask price and the seller-specified offered price. However, these trading conditions are well known and are a matter of design choice that can be applied to match regulations or authority laws. For example, Negron-Moreno discloses- the buy order including an ask price specifying a maximum price that the compute resource buyer is willing to pay (Negron-Moreno, Fig 1 steps: 108-112, paragraph 0045, wherein “In the first path the user indicates interest in buying tickets 108. The system will ask the user to specify a quantity of tickets and a specified price, shown in the buyer offer detail step 110. The buyer then posts their offer(s) 112”), - the seller-specified offered price is made available to the compute exchange independently of the buy order (Negron-Moreno, Fig 1 steps: 108-112, 114-118, paragraph 0045-0046, wherein “In the first path the user indicates interest in buying tickets 108. The system will ask the user to specify a quantity of tickets and a specified price, shown in the buyer offer detail step 110. The buyer then posts their offer(s) 112”, “The seller path includes the decision step where the seller indicates they have tickets to sell for the selected event, denoted as the seller ticket availability step 114. The seller submits the price and quantity of the tickets, outlined in the sell offer details step 116, and posts the sell offer on the platform, as indicated in the submit sell offer 118”), and- the matching is based on the ask price and the seller-specified offered price (Negron-Moreno, Fig 1 steps: 122, paragraph 0048, wherein “The platform continuously compares buy and sell offers, an operation depicted in the offer comparison step 122. When a price and quantity match is identified between a buyer's offer and a seller's listing, the platform processes the transaction via an escrow service, ensuring secure payment and ticket transfer, as shown in the transaction processing step 124”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Negron-Moreno’s teachings into Horvitz to achieve the claimed limitations because this would have provided a way to adapt authorities regulations that require the buyer to include and asking price and require the seller to offer a selling price without prior knowledge of the buyer asking price.Horvitz and Negron-Moreno do not explicitly disclose that the one or more workload requirement constraints that are satisfied by resource attribute fields included in the sell order. However, Lian discloses that the one or more workload requirement constraints that are satisfied by resource attribute fields included in the sell order (Lian, paragraph 0099-0100, wherein “The bid has multiple parameters, including a quantity value, a price value, and a QoS value defined as in the previous paragraph”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Lian teachings into Horvitz and Negron-Moreno to achieve the claimed limitations because this would have provided a way to select the most advantageous bid among the bids based on the parameters included within the bids which provides a better user satisfaction.
As per claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated and Horvitz further discloses wherein the price is based on one or more of the buy order, the sell order, availability of access to the compute resources of the one or more compute resource seller, a characteristic of the workload, and characteristics of the compute resources at the chosen compute resource seller (Horvitz, Fig 8, paragraph 0087, wherein at decision block 808, the resource broker 110 may perform the computing task using the one of cloud computing providers 102(1)-102(n) that submitted the most advantageous bid for the customer. For example, but not as a limitation, the most advantageous bid may be the lowest cost bid for the performance of the computing task, the bid for the shortest latency response time during the performance of the computing task, or a bid for the shortest completion time for the computing task);
As per claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated and Horvitz further discloses wherein the price is further based on respective real-time pricing of respective cloud compute resources from the plurality of compute resource sellers based on a current demand for the respective cloud compute resources (Horvitz, Fig 8, paragraph 0085, wherein in some embodiments, the bids may be solicited via an auction. For example, but not as a limitation, the auction may be an English auction, a Dutch auction, or a Vickery auction. In at least one embodiment, the auction may be conducted in real time following the receipt of the computing task. In various embodiments, the resource broker 110 may solicit the bids via electronic bidding, such as via an electronic auction website);
As per claim 6, claim 1 is incorporated and Horvitz further discloses wherein determining the chosen compute resource seller occurs by a user selection or an automated selection by the compute exchange based on one or more parameters (Horvitz, Fig 8, paragraph 0087, wherein at decision block 808, the resource broker 110 may perform the computing task using the one of cloud computing providers 102(1)-102(n) that submitted the most advantageous bid for the customer. For example, but not as a limitation, the most advantageous bid may be the lowest cost bid for the performance of the computing task, the bid for the shortest latency response time during the performance of the computing task, or a bid for the shortest completion time for the computing task);
As per claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated and Horvitz further discloses receiving characteristics of the compute resources from the plurality of compute resource sellers that would be offered at real-time pricing, wherein the chosen compute resource seller is determined based on the price being a lowest-price for the real-time pricing or characteristics of the compute resources from the chosen compute resource seller even when the compute resources are not lowest-priced compute resources (Horvitz, Fig 8, paragraph 0087, wherein at decision block 808, the resource broker 110 may perform the computing task using the one of cloud computing providers 102(1)-102(n) that submitted the most advantageous bid for the customer. For example, but not as a limitation, the most advantageous bid may be the lowest cost bid for the performance of the computing task, the bid for the shortest latency response time during the performance of the computing task, or a bid for the shortest completion time for the computing task);
As per claim 9, claim 1 is incorporated and Horvitz further discloses wherein the compute exchange comprises: a workload manager, a high-performance computing suite, an on-demand data center engine and one or more applications available for the compute resource buyer (Horvitz, Fig 1, paragraph 0032, wherein resource broker 110 may be an entity that facilitates interactions between one or more of the cloud computing resource providers 102(1)-102(n) and the customers 104. Thus, the customers 104 may obtain the use of computing resources without dealing directly with the cloud computing providers 102(1)-102(n). For example, but not as a limitation, the resource broker 110 may locate and obtain the most cost-effective service capability from one or more of cloud computing providers 102(1)-102(n). In various embodiments, as further described below, the resource broker 110 may negotiate for computing resources from one or more of the cloud computing providers 102(1)-102(n), provide computing tasks to selected ones of the cloud computing providers 102(1)-102(n) on behalf of the customers 106, provide results for the customers 104, collect payments from the customers, and provide compensation to the utilized ones of cloud computing providers 102(1)-102(n). In at least some embodiments, the resource broker 110 may perform these actions via the use of data 112 (e.g., prior performance and cost history) on one or more of the cloud computing providers 102(1)-102(n). The resource broker 110 may also derive gain from the difference between the payments received from the customers 104 and the compensation paid to the cloud computing providers as reward for the services provided. It will be appreciated that while only a single resource broker 110 is illustrated in FIG. 1, a plurality of resource broker 110 may interact with the cloud computing providers 102(1)-102(n) and customers 104);
As per claim 11, claim 1 is incorporated and Horvitz further discloses causing, via the compute exchange, a division of the workload into the portion of the workload and a second portion of the workload (Horvitz, Fig 13, paragraph 0136, wherein at block 1304, the resource broker 110 may abstract the computing tasks into a plurality of sub computing tasks. For example, but not as a limitation, the web indexing operation may be divided into smaller web indexing tasks); and causing, via the compute exchange, a deployment of the portion of the workload on the chosen compute resource seller and a deployment of the second portion of the workload on a second compute environment (Horvitz, Fig 13, paragraph 0137, wherein the resource broker 110 may distribute the plurality of sub computing tasks to a plurality of personal computer devices. For example, but not as a limitation, the plurality of personal computing devices may include personal computers, portable computers, game consoles, portable phones, and/or the like. Each of the plurality of personal computing devices may have access to a network infrastructure (e.g., Internet) that enables the devices to participate in cloud computing by downloading computing tasks and uploading computation results. In various embodiments, the personal computing devices may be spread over different geographical locations around the globe while remain connected via the network infrastructure 106);
Claims 13, and 16-17 and 19 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1, 4-7, 9, 11.
Claims 2-3 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horvitz et al (Pub. No.: US 2010/0332262 A1) in view of Negron-Moreno et al (Pub. No.: US 2025/0166033 A1) and Grey et al (Pub. No.: US 2003/0041011 A1).
As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and Horvitz and Negron-Moreno do not explicitly disclose receiving a registration of respective buyer accounts at the compute exchange from the plurality of compute resource buyers; and receiving a registration of respective seller accounts at the compute exchange from the plurality of compute resource sellers. However, registering sellers and buyers is well known in the art. For example, Grey discloses receiving a registration of respective buyer accounts at the compute exchange from the plurality of compute resource buyers; and receiving a registration of respective seller accounts at the compute exchange from the plurality of compute resource sellers (Grey, Fig 4, paragraph 0075, wherein a table is shown representing a participant database 200 that may be stored at, or accessible by, auction administrator device 100 according to an embodiment of the present invention. The table includes entries identifying a number of different entities and/or individuals that have been identified as participating in an auction pursuant to the present invention. Participants identified in participant database 200 may include parties acting as buyers in an auction as well as parties acting as sellers in an auction. This information may be stored in database 200 when a participant registers for participation in one or more auctions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Grey’s teachings into Horvitz and Negron-Moreno to achieve the claimed limitations because this would have provided a way to organize and control/manage the buying and selling process which improves the efficiency of the system.
As per claim 3, claim 2 is incorporated and Horvitz further discloses wherein each compute resource seller of the plurality of compute resource sellers is a cloud service provider (Horvitz, Fig 8, paragraph 0086, wherein at decision block 804-806, the resource broker 110 may decide whether to solicit bids from a plurality of cloud computing providers 102(1)-102(n) for the performance of the computing task);
Claims 14-15 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 2-3.
Claims 8, 10, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horvitz et al (Pub. No.: US 2010/0332262 A1) in view of Negron-Moreno et al (Pub. No.: US 2025/0166033 A1), Lian et al (Pub. No.: US 2015/0379542 A1) and Bhageria et al (Pub. No.: US 2019/0155643 A1).
As per claim 8, claim 1 is incorporated and Horvitz, Negron-Moreno and Lian do not explicitly disclose determining the chosen compute resource seller based on real-time status data about an on-premises compute environment associated with the compute resource buyer. However, Bhageria discloses determining the chosen compute resource seller based on real-time status data about an on-premises compute environment associated with the compute resource buyer (Bhageria, paragraph 0052, wherein the decision is made whether cloud resources are needed, box 122. If cloud resources are not needed the flow follows the “NO” path back to select the local computing system 100 whereas if cloud resources are needed, the flow follows the “YES” path).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Bhageria teachings into Horvitz, Negron-Moreno and Lian to achieve the claimed limitations because this would have provided a way to improve the efficiency and performance of the system by allowing workloads with strict performance, security, or compliance requirements to be hosted in house where there is complete visibility and control of the infrastructure and workloads that do not have such requirements may be deployed to either the private or public cloud depending on cost and capacity (see Bhageria paragraph 0002).
As per claim 10, claim 1 is incorporated and Horvitz, Negron-Moreno and Lian do not explicitly disclose causing, by the compute exchange, a deployment of a second portion of the workload on an on-premises compute environment of the compute resource buyer. However, Bhageria discloses causing, by the compute exchange, a deployment of a second portion of the workload on an on-premises compute environment of the compute resource buyer (Bhageria, paragraph 0052, wherein the decision is made whether cloud resources are needed, box 122. If cloud resources are not needed the flow follows the “NO” path back to select the local computing system 100 whereas if cloud resources are needed, the flow follows the “YES” path).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Bhageria teachings into Horvitz, Negron-Moreno and Lian to achieve the claimed limitations because this would have provided a way to improve the efficiency and performance of the system by allowing workloads with strict performance, security, or compliance requirements to be hosted in house where there is complete visibility and control of the infrastructure and workloads that do not have such requirements may be deployed to either the private or public cloud depending on cost and capacity (see Bhageria paragraph 0002).
As per claim 12, claim 11 is incorporated and Horvitz, Negron-Moreno and Lian do not explicitly disclose wherein the second compute environment comprises an on-premises compute environment. However, Bhageria discloses wherein the second compute environment comprises an on-premises compute environment (Bhageria, paragraph 0052, wherein the decision is made whether cloud resources are needed, box 122. If cloud resources are not needed the flow follows the “NO” path back to select the local computing system 100 whereas if cloud resources are needed, the flow follows the “YES” path).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Bhageria teachings into Horvitz, Negron-Moreno and Lian to achieve the claimed limitations because this would have provided a way to improve the efficiency and performance of the system by allowing workloads with strict performance, security, or compliance requirements to be hosted in house where there is complete visibility and control of the infrastructure and workloads that do not have such requirements may be deployed to either the private or public cloud depending on cost and capacity (see Bhageria paragraph 0002).
Claim 18 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 and 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/17/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZA N ALGIBHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7212. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Wing Chan can be reached at (571) 272-7493. 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.
/HAMZA N ALGIBHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights