DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The action is in reply to the Application 18/639,766 filed on 04/18/2024.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
The action is made NON-FINAL.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 appear to have typos – “service usage associated with use by the first plurality of affiliations” which should recite as “service usage associated with the first plurality of affiliations”.
Claims 4 and 11 recite the abbreviation “ACP” without prior identification of the words to which the abbreviation refers to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-15 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter) since the claimed invention falls into “a process” (a method for building and managing dynamic rate cards for use with cloud service subscription), “a machine” (a system for building and managing dynamic rate cards for use with cloud service subscription), and “an article of manufacture” (a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for building and managing dynamic rate cards for use with cloud service subscription) categories.
Regarding Claims 1-15, the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
A method, comprising:
identifying a plurality of usage rates corresponding respectively to a plurality of cloud computing services, wherein values for the plurality of usage rates are modifiable over time;
generating … that references a first set of values for a corresponding first set of usage rates of the plurality of usage rates, wherein … is modified responsive to determining that a change has occurred in a value of at least one of the first set of usage rates;
generating … that references a second set of values for a corresponding second set of usage rates of the plurality of usage rates, wherein … is not modified responsive to determining that a change has occurred in a value of any of the second set of usage rates;
associating … with a first plurality of affiliations in a first one-to-many relationship;
associating … with a second plurality of affiliations in a second one-to-many relationship;
referencing … to determine a respective first set of applicable values for service usage associated with use by the first plurality of affiliations of the plurality of cloud computing services based on the first set of usage rates; and
referencing … to determine a respective second set of applicable values for service usage associated with the second plurality of affiliations of the plurality of cloud computing services based on the second set of usage rates.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 1 described above are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve commercial interactions. The limitations of identifying, generating, associating, and referencing mutable and semi-immutable data structure to determine respective set of applicable values for service usage associate with affiliations of the cloud computing services are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve a commercial interaction such as managing business relations. Therefore, other than reciting a generic computerized system, a generic database, and generic user devices, nothing in the claim elements preclude anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements – “a mutable data structure” and “a semi-immutable data structure”. These additional elements represent mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “further comprising: identifying an updated value or change of a first one of the first set of usage rates; and modifying … to add an updated usage rate corresponding to the first one of the first set of usage rates, wherein the updated usage rate in … references the updated value” in Claim 2, by defining “further comprising: identifying an updated value or change of a first one of the second set of usage rates; and generating … that comprises … with an addition of an updated usage rate corresponding to the first one of the second set of usage rates, wherein the updated usage rate in … references the updated value” in Claim 3, by defining “further comprising: identifying a new usage rate for a new cloud computing service not included in the plurality of cloud computing services; modifying … to add the new usage rate corresponding to usage of the new cloud computing service, wherein the new usage rate in the modified … references a value of the new usage rate for the new cloud computing service; generating … that comprises … ACP rate card with an addition of the new usage rate corresponding to usage of the new cloud computing service, wherein the new usage rate in … references the value of the new usage rate for the new cloud computing service; referencing the modified … to determine the value of the new usage rate for the new cloud computing service for service usage associated with use by the first plurality of affiliations of the new cloud computing service; and referencing … to determine the value of the new usage rate for the new cloud computing service for service usage associated with use by the first plurality of affiliations of the new cloud computing service” in Claim 4, by defining “further comprising: receiving a new affiliation or subscription relating to one of the plurality of cloud computing services; determining whether a value of a usage rate for access by the new affiliation to the one of the plurality of cloud computing services comprises one or more of the values of the first or second sets of usage rates; and one of: associating the new affiliation with … based on the value of the usage rate for access by the new affiliation to the one of the plurality of cloud computing services comprising one or more of the first set of usage rates; or associating the new affiliation with … based on the usage rate for access by the new affiliation to the one of the plurality of cloud computing services comprising one or more of the second set of usage rates” in Claim 5, by defining “further comprising: determining that a first affiliation or subscription of the first plurality of affiliations is associated with … based on a first subscription characteristic or operator realm associated with the service usage of the first affiliation relative to the plurality of cloud computing services deployed in …; and determining that a second affiliation or subscription of the second plurality of affiliations is associated with … based on a second subscription characteristic of the second affiliation relative to the plurality of cloud computing services deployed in …” in Claim 6, and by defining “further comprising: determining that a first affiliation or subscription of the first plurality of affiliations is associated with … based on a first subscription characteristic or operator realm associated with the service usage of the first affiliation relative to the plurality of cloud computing services deployed in …; and determining that a second affiliation or subscription of the second plurality of affiliations is associated with … based on a second subscription characteristic of the second affiliation relative to the plurality of cloud computing services deployed in …” in Claim 7.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 2-7 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 2 recites an additional element – “the mutable data structure”, Claim 3 recites additional elements – “a new semi-immutable data structure” and “the semi-immutable data structure”, Claim 4 recites additional elements – “the mutable data structure”, “a new semi-immutable data structure”, and “the semi-immutable data structure”, Claim 5 recites additional elements – “the mutable data structure” and “the semi-immutable data structure”, Claim 6 recites additional elements – “the mutable data structure”, “the semi-immutable data structure”, and “a cloud computing infrastructure”, and Claim 7 recites additional elements – “the mutable data structure”, “the semi-immutable data structure”, and “a cloud computing infrastructure”. These additional elements amount to no more than representing mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claims 2-7 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-7 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, these additional elements amount to no more than representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites the following limitations:
A system, comprising:
…;
…;
a plurality of services deployed within …; and
a rate card service operable in … controlled by a cloud infrastructure provider, the rate card service being operable to:
identify a plurality of usage rates corresponding respectively to a plurality of cloud computing services, wherein values for the plurality of usage rates are modifiable over time;
generate … that references a first set of values for a corresponding first set of usage rates of the plurality of usage rates, wherein … is modified responsive to determining that a change has occurred in a value of at least one of the first set of usage rates;
generate … that references a second set of values for a corresponding second set of usage rates of the plurality of usage rates, wherein … is not modified responsive to determining that a change has occurred in a value of any of the second set of usage rates;
associate … with a first plurality of affiliations in a first one-to-many relationship;
associate … with a second plurality of affiliations in a second one-to-many relationship;
reference … to determine a respective first set of applicable values for service usage associated with use by the first plurality of affiliations of the plurality of cloud computing services based on the first set of usage rates; and
reference … to determine a respective second set of applicable values for service usage associated with the second plurality of affiliations of the plurality of cloud computing services based on the second set of usage rates.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 8 described above are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve commercial interactions. The limitations of identifying, generating, associating, and referencing mutable and semi-immutable data structure to determine respective set of applicable values for service usage associate with affiliations of the cloud computing services are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve a commercial interaction such as managing business relations. Therefore, other than reciting a generic computerized system, a generic database, and generic user devices, nothing in the claim elements preclude anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 8 recites additional elements – “one or more computers comprising one or more microprocessors”, “a cloud environment running on the one or more computers”, “one or more realms of the cloud environment”, “a realm of the cloud environment”, “a mutable data structure” and “a semi-immutable data structure”. The additional elements of “one or more computers comprising one or more microprocessors” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Other additional elements represent mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform the abstract idea amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and represent mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 9-14 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 8 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 8 such as by defining “wherein the rate card service is further operable to: identify an updated value or change of a first one of the first set of usage rates; and modify … to add an updated usage rate corresponding to the first one of the first set of usage rates, wherein the updated usage rate in … references the updated value” in Claim 9, by defining “wherein the rate card service is further operable to: identify an updated value or change of a first one of the second set of usage rates; and generate … that comprises … with an addition of an updated usage rate corresponding to the first one of the second set of usage rates, wherein the updated usage rate in … references the updated value” in Claim 10, by defining “wherein the rate card service is further operable to: identify a new usage rate for a new cloud computing service not included in the plurality of cloud computing services; modify … to add the new usage rate corresponding to usage of the new cloud computing service, wherein the new usage rate in the modified … references a value of the new usage rate for the new cloud computing service; generate … that comprises … ACP rate card with an addition of the new usage rate corresponding to usage of the new cloud computing service, wherein the new usage rate in … references the value of the new usage rate for the new cloud computing service; reference the modified … to determine the value of the new usage rate for the new cloud computing service for service usage associated with use by the first plurality of affiliations of the new cloud computing service; and reference … to determine the value of the new usage rate for the new cloud computing service for service usage associated with use by the first plurality of affiliations of the new cloud computing service” in Claim 11, by defining “wherein the rate card service is further operable to: receive a new affiliation or subscription relating to one of the plurality of cloud computing services; determine whether a value of a usage rate for access by the new affiliation to the one of the plurality of cloud computing services comprises one or more of the values of the first or second sets of usage rates; and one of: associate the new affiliation with … based on the value of the usage rate for access by the new affiliation to the one of the plurality of cloud computing services comprising one or more of the first set of usage rates; or associate the new affiliation with … based on the usage rate for access by the new affiliation to the one of the plurality of cloud computing services comprising one or more of the second set of usage rates” in Claim 12, by defining “wherein the rate card service is further operable to: determine that a first affiliation or subscription of the first plurality of affiliations is associated with … based on a first subscription characteristic or operator realm associated with the service usage of the first affiliation relative to the plurality of cloud computing services deployed in …; and determine that a second affiliation or subscription of the second plurality of affiliations is associated with … based on a second subscription characteristic of the second affiliation relative to the plurality of cloud computing services deployed in …” in Claim 13, and by defining “wherein the rate card service is further operable to: determine that a first affiliation or subscription of the first plurality of affiliations is associated with … based on a first subscription characteristic or operator realm associated with the service usage of the first affiliation relative to the plurality of cloud computing services deployed in …; and determine that a second affiliation or subscription of the second plurality of affiliations is associated with … based on a second subscription characteristic of the second affiliation relative to the plurality of cloud computing services deployed in …” in Claim 14.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 9-14 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 9 recites an additional element – “the mutable data structure”, Claim 10 recites additional elements – “a new semi-immutable data structure” and “the semi-immutable data structure”, Claim 11 recites additional elements – “the mutable data structure”, “a new semi-immutable data structure”, and “the semi-immutable data structure”, Claim 12 recites additional elements – “the mutable data structure” and “the semi-immutable data structure”, Claim 13 recites additional elements – “the mutable data structure”, “the semi-immutable data structure”, and “a cloud computing infrastructure”, and Claim 14 recites additional elements – “the mutable data structure”, “the semi-immutable data structure”, and “a cloud computing infrastructure”. These additional elements amount to no more than representing mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claims 9-14 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 9-14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, these additional elements amount to no more than representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites the following limitations:
… to perform a method comprising:
identifying a plurality of usage rates corresponding respectively to a plurality of cloud computing services, wherein values for the plurality of usage rates are modifiable over time;
generating … that references a first set of values for a corresponding first set of usage rates of the plurality of usage rates, wherein … is modified responsive to determining that a change has occurred in a value of at least one of the first set of usage rates;
generating … that references a second set of values for a corresponding second set of usage rates of the plurality of usage rates, wherein … is not modified responsive to determining that a change has occurred in a value of any of the second set of usage rates;
associating … with a first plurality of affiliations in a first one-to-many relationship;
associating … with a second plurality of affiliations in a second one-to-many relationship;
referencing … to determine a respective first set of applicable values for service usage associated with use by the first plurality of affiliations of the plurality of cloud computing services based on the first set of usage rates; and
referencing … to determine a respective second set of applicable values for service usage associated with the second plurality of affiliations of the plurality of cloud computing services based on the second set of usage rates.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 15 described above are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve commercial interactions. The limitations of identifying, generating, associating, and referencing mutable and semi-immutable data structure to determine respective set of applicable values for service usage associate with affiliations of the cloud computing services are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve a commercial interaction such as managing business relations. Therefore, other than reciting a generic computerized system, a generic database, and generic user devices, nothing in the claim elements preclude anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 15 recites additional elements – “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions thereon, which when performed in a computer system including a processor cause the computer”, “a mutable data structure” and “a semi-immutable data structure”. The additional elements of “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions thereon, which when performed in a computer system including a processor cause the computer” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Other additional elements represent mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform the abstract idea amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and represent mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-15 would be allowable over prior art of record; however, they remain rejected under other statues. After having performed a search of prior art, including all feature limitations of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, the references fail to teach or suggest alone, or in combination with other art, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 in their entirety; and in particular, “generating a mutable data structure that references a first set of values for a corresponding first set of usage rates of the plurality of usage rates, wherein the mutable data structure is modified responsive to determining that a change has occurred in a value of at least one of the first set of usage rates” and “generating a semi-immutable data structure that references a second set of values for a corresponding second set of usage rates of the plurality of usage rates, wherein the semi-immutable data structure is not modified responsive to determining that a change has occurred in a value of any of the second set of usage rates” in combination with other claim limitations, as recited in Claim 1, similarly in Claims 8 and 15.
Regarding the novelty/non-obviousness of the invention, the closet prior art is found to be Panikkar et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0393829 A1; hereinafter "Panikkar") in view of Samanta et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2024/0089722 A1; hereinafter "Samanta") and KEMPF et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0081404 A1; hereinafter "KEMPF"). Panikkar teaches a system and method for processing usage data for remote infrastructure using adjustable execution models. Samanta teaches a system and method for processing data associated with remote infrastructure. KEMPF teaches a system and method for managing cloud services using smart contracts to facilitate various functions such as tenant login, tenant enrollment, service registration, tenant usage charging, tenant usage tracking, tenant quota management, and tenant rights revocation. However, Panikkar in view of Samanta and KEMPF fails to disclose “generating a mutable data structure that references a first set of values for a corresponding first set of usage rates of the plurality of usage rates, wherein the mutable data structure is modified responsive to determining that a change has occurred in a value of at least one of the first set of usage rates” and “generating a semi-immutable data structure that references a second set of values for a corresponding second set of usage rates of the plurality of usage rates, wherein the semi-immutable data structure is not modified responsive to determining that a change has occurred in a value of any of the second set of usage rates” as recited in Claims 1, 8, and 15. As a result, neither alone nor in combination, do the references teach the limitations described above.
Examiner concludes that the references mentioned above, alone or in combination, fail to teach independent claims 1, 8, and 15, in their entirety.
By virtue of their dependence on novel/non-obvious claims 1 and 8, claims (2-7) and (9-14) are novel/non-obvious, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYAR M KYU whose telephone number is (571)272-3419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 6:00 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/T.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628