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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claims 12-13, the spelling of “analyse” should be in American English and consistently read --analyze--.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the limitations of a method comprising “determining one or more parameters of a deterioration condition at a future point in time” and “monitoring for occurrence of the deterioration condition” which are processes that can be perform in the mind. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper, therefore, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements of “computer implemented” is recited so generically that they represent not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using or on a generic computing system and performing generic computer function. Additionally, enabling a “computer system to perform” computing operation “in association with” respective “one of the two logical storage areas” that comprises the token fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “to perform” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, MPEP 2106.05(f). The “transferring a token between two logical storage areas” and “reversing the direction of the transfer…” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim 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 “computer implemented” in performing the method is recited so generically that they represent not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using or on a generic computing system and performing generic computer function, and as to the “transferring a token…” and “reversing the direction of the transfer…”, the courts have identified mere data transmission as well-understood, routine and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Furthermore, the limitation enabling a “computer system to perform” computing operation “in association with” respective “one of the two logical storage areas” that comprises the token fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “to perform” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
As to claim 17, the limitations define the parameters being determined, thus directed to a further mental process which is rejected for the same reason as claim 16 above.
As to claim 18, “transferring further tokens…” and “further reversing the transfer of the tokens…” are merely insignificant extra solution activity under prong 2. Under step 2B, as explained above, the courts have identified transmitting data/information is well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
As to claim 19, the “configuring the token and further tokens to collectively represent the expected shortage amount of the resource” is treated in light of applicant’s specification as the determining/designating/representing a size/amount of resource shortage and scheduling of transfer [paragraphs 86-87] and thus directed to a further mental process which is rejected for the same reason as claim 16 above.
As to claim 20, the limitations recite a further mental process of “analyzing historical data in connection with the first logical area” which is rejected for the same reason as claim 16 above. The additional element of “with a trained machine learning model” fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “with a trained machine learning model” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception thus are considered to merely apply the abstract idea which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B.
As to claim 1, this claim is rejected for the same rationale as claim 16 above. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of “a computing system, comprising: a processor; a memory coupled to the processor…” which are merely generic computer components, thus is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B.
As to claims 2-3, the claims further define the logical storage areas where the token is transferred in between and are merely insignificant extra solution activity under prong 2. Under step 2B, as explained above, the courts have identified transmitting data/information is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Furthermore, the claim further defines the deterioration conditions being determined, thus directed to a further mental process which is rejected for the same reason as claim 16 above.
As to claim 4, the limitations define the parameters being determined, thus directed to a further mental process which is rejected for the same reason as claim 16 above.
As to claims 5-7 and 14, these claims are rejected for the same reason as claim 19 above.
As to claims 8 and 12, the claims recite the “analyzing”, “analyse” data/information, thus directed to a further mental process which is rejected for the same reason as claim 16 above.
As to claims 9 and 13, these claims are rejected for the same reason as claim 20 above.
As to claim 10, the claims recite “determine the one or more parameters”, thus directed to a further mental process which is rejected for the same reason as claim 16 above. The additional element of “receiving information” add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data under prong 2. Under step 2B, as explained above, the courts have identified transmitting data/information is well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
As to claim 11, the claim recites “determine the one or more parameter” by “consulting” data, thus directed to a further mental process which is rejected for the same reason as claim 16 above.
As to claim 15, “obtain approval…” and “the transfer of the tokens…” are merely insignificant extra solution activity under prong 2. Under step 2B, as explained above, the courts have identified transmitting data/information is well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2010/0241751 to Sonoda et al. (hereafter Sonoda) in view of Translation of JP 2004326452 Fukushima.
As to claim 16, Sonoda teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a computer-implemented method comprising:
determining one or more parameters of a deterioration condition at a future point in time [necessary resource determining unit determine the amount of resource shortage by comparing predicted demand amount and the amount of fixed resource, paragraph 92];
transferring a token between two fixed resources of a server based on the one or more parameters, the token including data that enables a computer system to perform a computing operation in association with one of the two fixed resources that comprises the token [transfer of spare resources among lending customer(s) and borrowing customer(s) (i.e. spare resources added to or subtracted from respective fix resources of respective customers), Fig. 4 and corresponding text; fixed resources of server, paragraph 7] (Note: the limitation token is disclosed in applicant’s specification as representing a particular amount of a resource in applicant’s specification such that the examiner is interpreting transfer of token among resources as the allocation of the amount of resource among fixed resources of respective customers);
monitoring for occurrence of the deterioration condition; and
in response to detecting the occurrence of the deterioration condition, reversing a direction of the transfer of the token to enable the computer system to perform the computing operation in association with the other one of the two fixed resources that now comprises the token [return of lent resources at the end of the lendable time zone to lending customer, paragraphs 61 and 70; return of borrow resource at end of lendable time zone to make borrowed resource available by the time the lending customer needs it, Fig. 4; reclaiming or return request of lent fixed resource upon determination of resource shortage, paragraphs 92-93; resources of a server allow application of customer to be executed and provide a service, paragraph 15, lines 1-12].
Sonoda does not specifically teach logical storage areas. However, Sonoda disclosed fixed allocation of resources of a server where token or spare resources are being transferred or assign [abstract; paragraphs 7, 61, 70 and 92-93]. Furthermore, Fukushima teaches surplus resources being borrowed and lent between customer devices being storage capacity in grid computing [paragraphs 5-6, 48-49, 67 and 70-71].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Sonoda with Fukushima because they are both in the same field of endeavor as being considered by Sonoda [paragraph 9].
As to claim 17, Sonoda and Fukushima teach the invention substantially as claimed including wherein the one or more parameters of the deterioration condition include one or more of an expected shortage amount of a resource in a first logical storage area of the two logical storage areas upon the occurrence of the deterioration condition, an expected period of time until the occurrence of the deterioration condition, and an expected duration of the deterioration condition [Sonoda, resource shortage or need in a future time of lending customer; period until lent resources are needed; and when lending customer becomes borrower, Fig. 4 and corresponding text; paragraph 96].
As to claim 1, Sonoda and Fukushima teach the method of managing resources substantially as claimed in claim 1, therefore Sonoda and Fukushima teach the system for implementing the method. Furthermore, Sonoda and Fukushima teach a processor and a memory [Sonoda, Fig. 17 and corresponding text].
As to claim 2, Sonoda and Fukushima teach the invention substantially as claimed including wherein the two logical storage areas comprise a first logical storage area and a second logical storage area, the deterioration condition being associated with the first logical storage area, and wherein the transfer occurs from the first logical storage area to the second logical storage area, and the reversed transfer occurs from the second logical storage area to the first logical storage area [Sonoda, transfer of spare resources from lending customer(s) to borrowing customer(s) (i.e. spare resources added to or subtracted from respective fix resources of respective customers), Fig. 4 and corresponding text; fixed resources of server, paragraph 7; return of lent resources at the end of the lendable time zone from borrowing customer to lending customer, paragraphs 61 and 70; return of borrow resource at end of lendable time zone to make borrowed resource available by the time the lending customer needs it, Fig. 4; reclaiming or return request of lent fixed resource upon determination of resource shortage, paragraphs 92-93; resources of a server allow application of customer to be executed and provide a service, paragraph 15, lines 1-12].
As to claim 3, Sonoda and Fukushima teach the invention substantially as claimed including wherein the deterioration condition includes one or more of: a decrease in input of a resource into the first logical storage area; and an increase in use of the resource in the first logical storage area [Sonoda, transfer of spare resources from lending customer(s) to borrowing customer(s) (i.e. spare resources added to or subtracted from respective fix resources of respective customers) hence decrease the amount of resource available, Fig. 4 and corresponding text; fixed resources of server, paragraph 7; return of lent resources at the end of the lendable time zone and/or when load exceeding the predicted load from the borrowing customer to lending customer, paragraphs 61 and 70; predicted available remaining fixed resources during a period versus outside of the period when there’s increase in load, paragraphs 14, 80-83 and 213].
As to claim 4, Sonoda and Fukushima teach the invention substantially as claimed including wherein the one or more parameters of the deterioration condition include one or more of an expected resource shortage amount in the first logical storage area upon the occurrence of the deterioration condition, an expected period of time until the occurrence of the deterioration condition, and an expected duration of the deterioration condition [Sonoda, resource shortage or need in a future time of lending customer; period until lent resources are needed; and when lending customer becomes borrower, Fig. 4 and corresponding text; paragraph 96].
As to claim 5, Sonoda and Fukushima teach the invention substantially as claimed including when executed by the processor, further configure the processor to: configure the token to represent an amount of the resource based on the one or more parameters [configure/determine amount of spare resources to allocate by matching lendable time zone and calculated total borrowing time zone among lending customer(s) and borrowing customer(s) (i.e. spare resources added to or subtracted from respective fix resources of respective customers), Fig. 4 and corresponding text; fixed resources of server, paragraph 7] (Note: the limitation token is disclosed in applicant’s specification as representing a particular amount of a resource in applicant’s specification such that the examiner is interpreting transfer of token among resources as the allocation of the amount of resource among fixed resources of respective customers).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-14 and 18-20 are allowable by overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Sonoda and Fukushima disclosed the transferring of spare resources between two logical storage areas based on the one or more parameters, the spare resources including data that enables a computer system to perform a computing operation in association with one of the two logical storage areas that comprises the spare resources. The prior art(s) of record when taken individually or in combination do not expressly teach or render obvious the limitations “periodically transferring further tokens from the first logical storage area to a second logical storage area” and “further reversing the transfer of the tokens” as a whole as recited in claims 6 and 18.
Neither a reference uncovered that would have provided a basis of evidence for asserting a motivation, nor one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, knowing the teaching of the prior arts of record would have combined them to arrive at the present invention as recited in the context of claims 6 and 18 as a whole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QING YUAN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-3776. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-6PM 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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 571-272-3759. 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.
/QING YUAN WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights