DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The action is in reply to the Application 18/639,768 filed on 04/1/2024.
Claims 1-13 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 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-13 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 migrating cloud service subscriptions for use in creating rate cards), “a machine” (a system for building and migrating cloud service subscriptions for use in creating rate cards), and “an article of manufacture” (a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for building and migrating cloud service subscriptions for use in creating rate cards) categories.
Regarding Claims 1-13, 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, for use with …, wherein … 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, said … being associated with a first plurality of affiliations in a one-to-many relationship,
wherein … 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, said … being associated with a second plurality of affiliations in a set of one-to-many relationships;
receiving a new affiliation or subscription relating to one of the plurality of cloud computing services;
identifying a legacy usage rate corresponding to access to the one of the plurality of cloud computing services via the new affiliation;
creating a rule based on the identified legacy usage rate and a selected one of the plurality of usage rates; and
generating one of a new … or a new … based on the received new affiliation, wherein the new … references a determined value for a corresponding usage rate for access to the one of the plurality of cloud computing services via the new affiliation, wherein the determined value is based on the rule and the selected one of the plurality of usage rates.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 1 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as managing business relations. 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 – “mutable data structure” and “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 2-4 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 validating the determined value referenced in … by comparing: a legacy value associated with usage of the one of the plurality of cloud computing services by applying the legacy usage rate, with a migrated usage value associated with usage of the one of the plurality of cloud computing services by applying the determined value” in Claim 2, by defining “wherein: the validating the determined value referenced in … comprises determining a correspondence between the legacy value associated with usage of the one of the plurality of cloud computing services by applying the legacy usage rate, and the migrated usage value associated with usage of the one of the plurality of cloud computing services by applying the determined value” in Claim 3, and by defining “wherein the generating … comprises: generating … based on a legacy subscription characteristic or operator realm associated with the service usage of the new affiliation relative to the plurality of cloud computing services deployed in a cloud computing service” in Claim 4.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 2-4 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claims 2 and 3 recite an additional element – “the new data structure”, and Claim 4 recites additional elements – “the new mutable or semi-immutable data structure”. 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 2-4 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-4 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.
Claims 5 and 6 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 a pricing policy associated with the legacy usage rate, wherein the rule is created based on the identified pricing policy and legacy usage rate and the selected one of the plurality of usage rates” in Claim 5 and by defining “wherein the creating the rule comprises: a first stage comprising identifying a mismatch between the identified legacy usage rate and the selected one of the plurality of usage rates corresponding to access by the new affiliation to the one or the cloud computing services; and a second stage comprising generating in response to identifying the mismatch an additional rule, wherein the additional rule may be combined together with the rule created based on the identified legacy usage rate and the selected one of the plurality of usage rates to cause a match between the identified legacy usage rate and the selected one of the plurality of usage rates corresponding to access by the new affiliation to the one or the cloud computing services” in Claim 6.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 7 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, for use with …,
wherein … 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, said … being associated with a first plurality of affiliations in a one-to-many relationship,
wherein … 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, said … being associated with a second plurality of affiliations in a set of one-to-many relationships;
receive a new affiliation or subscription relating to one of the plurality of cloud computing services;
identifying a legacy usage rate corresponding to access to the one of the plurality of cloud computing services via the new affiliation;
creating a rule based on the legacy usage rate and a selected one of the plurality of usage rates; and
generate one of a new … or a new … based on the received new affiliation, wherein the new … references a determined value for a corresponding usage rate for access to the one of the plurality of cloud computing services via the new affiliation, wherein the determined value is based on the rule and the selected one of the plurality of usage rates.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 7 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as managing business relations. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 7 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”, “mutable data structure” and “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 7 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 8-10 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 7 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 7 such as by defining “further comprising validating the determined value referenced in … by comparing: a legacy value associated with usage of the one of the plurality of cloud computing services by applying the legacy usage rate, with a migrated usage value associated with usage of the one of the plurality of cloud computing services by applying the determined value” in Claim 8, by defining “wherein: the validating the determined value referenced in … comprises determining a correspondence between the legacy value associated with usage of the one of the plurality of cloud computing services by applying the legacy usage rate, and the migrated usage value associated with usage of the one of the plurality of cloud computing services by applying the determined value” in Claim 9, and by defining “wherein the generating … comprises: generating … based on a legacy subscription characteristic or operator realm associated with the service usage of the new affiliation relative to the plurality of cloud computing services deployed in a cloud computing service” in Claim 10.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 8-10 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claims 8 and 9 recite an additional element – “the new data structure”, and Claim 10 recites additional elements – “the new mutable or semi-immutable data structure”. 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 8-10 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 8-10 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.
Claims 11 and 12 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 7 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 7 such as by defining “further comprising: identifying a pricing policy associated with the legacy usage rate, wherein the rule is created based on the identified pricing policy and legacy usage rate and the selected one of the plurality of usage rates” in Claim 11 and by defining “wherein the creating the rule comprises: a first stage comprising identifying a mismatch between the identified legacy usage rate and the selected one of the plurality of usage rates corresponding to access by the new affiliation to the one or the cloud computing services; and a second stage comprising generating in response to identifying the mismatch an additional rule, wherein the additional rule may be combined together with the rule created based on the identified legacy usage rate and the selected one of the plurality of usage rates to cause a match between the identified legacy usage rate and the selected one of the plurality of usage rates corresponding to access by the new affiliation to the one or the cloud computing services” in Claim 12.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 13 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, for use with …,
wherein … 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, said … being associated with a first plurality of affiliations in a one-to-many relationship,
wherein … 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, said … being associated with a second plurality of affiliations in a set of one-to-many relationships;
receiving a new affiliation or subscription relating to one of the plurality of cloud computing services;
identifying a legacy usage rate corresponding to access to the one of the plurality of cloud computing services via the new affiliation;
creating a rule based on the legacy usage rate and a selected one of the plurality of usage rates; and
generating one of a new … or a new … based on the received new affiliation, wherein the new … references a determined value for a corresponding usage rate for access to the one of the plurality of cloud computing services via the new affiliation, wherein the determined value is based on the rule and the selected one of the plurality of usage rates.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 13 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as managing business relations. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 13 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”, “mutable data structure” and “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 13 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 1-13 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, 7, and 13, the references fail to teach or suggest alone, or in combination with other art, independent claims 1, 7, and 13 in their entirety; and in particular, “wherein the mutable data structure 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, said mutable data structure being associated with a first plurality of affiliations in a one-to-many relationship”, “wherein the semi-immutable data structure 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, said semi-immutable data structure being associated with a second plurality of affiliations in a set of one-to-many relationships” and “generating one of a new mutable data structure or a new semi-immutable data structure based on the received new affiliation, wherein the new mutable or semi-immutable data structure references a determined value for a corresponding usage rate for access to the one of the plurality of cloud computing services via the new affiliation, wherein the determined value is based on the rule and the selected one of the plurality of usage rates” in combination with other claim limitations, as recited in Claim 1, similarly in Claims 7 and 13.
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 “wherein the mutable data structure 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, said mutable data structure being associated with a first plurality of affiliations in a one-to-many relationship”, “wherein the semi-immutable data structure 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, said semi-immutable data structure being associated with a second plurality of affiliations in a set of one-to-many relationships” and “generating one of a new mutable data structure or a new semi-immutable data structure based on the received new affiliation, wherein the new mutable or semi-immutable data structure references a determined value for a corresponding usage rate for access to the one of the plurality of cloud computing services via the new affiliation, wherein the determined value is based on the rule and the selected one of the plurality of usage rates” as recited in Claims 1, 7, and 13. 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, 7, and 13, in their entirety.
By virtue of their dependence on novel/non-obvious claims 1 and 7, claims (2-6) and (8-12) 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