DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed February 9, 2026. Applicant’s February 9th amendment amended claims 1, 2, 4, 6-11, 13-16, 19. Currently Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 10 and 16 are the independent claims.
The instant application is a continuation of application no. 17673447 now U.S. Patent No. 12033099.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20 in the previous office action is maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. 112b rejection of claims 1-20 in the previous office action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections of claims 1-20 in the previous office action are withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Paragraph 1, Page 14, filed February 9, 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112b have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112b rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 15, 16, filed February 9, 2026, with respect to Bostic et. al. and Dutt have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed February 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (e.g. improves the functioning of a computing device; Specification: Paragraphs 39-41, 69, 73, 95-97; Remarks: Second to Last Paragraph, Page 9; Page 10; Paragraph 1, Page 11; Claim 6: Remarks: Page 13) and the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea (e.g. inventive concept - improves performance of a data computer clusters handling workloads by reducing resource consumption in launching application interfaces; Remarks: Last Paragraph, Page 11).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "the interface may be recovered without having to relaunching the associated application", Paragraph 3, Page 10; "dynamically allocating nodes for hosting instances of application used for interacting with applications", Paragraph 4, Page 10; "prevents allocates interfaces on nodes within a computer cluster", Last Paragraph, Page 10; "a failed interface can be recovered without having to relaunch application", Paragraph 1, Page 11; “handling workloads”, Last Paragraph, Page 11) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Initially it is noted that none of the argued ‘practical applications’ or ‘improvements’ are not positively recited independent claims 1, 10 or 16. Specifically none of the argued ‘improvements’ including: recovering interface without having to relaunch associated application, dynamically allocating nodes for hosting instances of applications, prevents allocates interfaces on nodes within a computer cluster, recover a failed interface without having to relaunch application are positively recited in any of the pending claims. None of the phrases recover, recovering, relaunch, relaunching, dynamically, prevent, preventing or the like appear anywhere in the independent claims. Examiner suggest Applicant positively recite one or more of these unclaimed ‘improvements’ as amendments to at least claims 1, 10 and 16 and more clearly map the wished for improvements/desired outcomes to the specific claimed method steps to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
While argued dependent claim 6, may hint at portions of the argued practical applications, none of the argued ‘improvements’ are positively recited features in claim 6. Specifically, claim 6 fails to recite recover interface without having to relaunch application it manages by detecting interface failure and automatically relaunching a new instance, recovering interfaces on a computer cluster (e.g. claim 6 does recite detecting a failed first instance but not recovering an interface as argued). Examiner suggest Applicant amend claims 6, potentially rolling an amended version of claim 6 into each of the independent claims, wherein the amended claim clearly and positively recites one or more of these unclaimed features in amendments and more provide more detailed/specific support the wished for improvements/desired outcomes to the specific claimed method steps to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner notes that the independent claims are no longer of commensurate scope and suggest Applicant’s subsequent responses/amendments should consider amending the claims to be of commensurate scope, include one or more of the argued ‘improvements’/’practical applications’ (see discussion above) and more clearly recite in the body of independent claim 10 who or what entity performs the various method steps (the limitations in the preamble have not been given patentable weight).
With regards to argued Specification Paragraphs 39-41, 69, 73, 95-97, these paragraphs at best may be directed to supporting the newly amended claims and/or the argued unclaimed features/’improvements’. None of these paragraphs disclose or discuss how the limitation of claims 1, 6, 10 or 16 provide a technical solution to a technical problem, improve the functioning of the computer/computing device, or improve another technical field.
The claims are directed to a well-known business practice – resource management – specifically the independent claims provide an ‘endpoint’ value to a first computing device (i.e. merely data output which may or may not actually be received or subsequently utilized by the first/second computing device; an endpoint value is nothing more than an ‘representation’ of an external resource– any device or node connected to a network/system that exchanges information – e.g. URL, port, interface ID, address, IP address, location, etc. – see specification Paragraph 63). While the claims may represent an improvement to the process of resource management they in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application.
Under the see MPEP § 2106.05, the claims are evaluated to determine if additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)- (h)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
For example, limitations that are indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP § 2106.05(a);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(±);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception- see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
In view of the MPEP § 2106.05, one must consider whether there are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The identified additional non-abstract elements recited in the independent claims are the generic processor circuit, memory, computing device, compute cluster, central job component (software per se). These generic computer hardware merely performs generic computer functions of receiving, processing and providing data and represent a purely conventional implementation of applicant’s resource management and do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field").
These recited additional elements are merely generic computer components. The claims do present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP § 2106.05 regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other — a distinction that the Federal Circuit applied in Enfish, in rejecting a § 101 challenge at the first stage of the Mayo/Alice framework because the claims at issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table, designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and not merely on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. Here the claims simply use a computer as a tool and nothing more.
For the reasons outlined above, that the claims recite a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea (i.e., processor circuit, memory, computing device, compute cluster, central job component (software per se)) is no more than a generic computer component used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 (“[Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)).
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
Here the only additional element recited in the claims beyond the abstract idea is a processor circuit, memory, computing device, compute cluster, central job component (software per se)” i.e., generic computer component. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea / recite an inventive concept, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of resource management. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology (processor, memories, etc.), are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in the claims through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
Similar to the discussion in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Appeal No. 19-1835 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2020), where the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that software inventions are patentable in the U.S. with a bright-line statement: “Our precedent is clear that software can make patent-eligible improvements to computer technology, and related claims are eligible as long as they are directed to non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.” the instant application merely applies the abstract idea using a generic computer as a conduit/tool for the abstract idea and does not improve the functioning of a computer or computer networks, does not improve another technical field and does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claims 1, 10 and 16, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of resource management. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, resource management (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to provide an ‘endpoint’ value to a first computing device - an endpoint being a ‘representation’ of an external resource (mere data output), wherein resource management is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. Further all of the steps of “receives”, “allocates”, “transmits”, and “cause” recite functions of the resource management are also directed to an abstract idea. The intended purpose of independent claims 1, 10, and 16 appears to provide (output, transmit, display, etc.) an endpoint value (data - e.g. URL, port, interface ID, address, IP address, location, etc. – see specification Paragraph 63) to a first/second computing device (which may or may not actually received or act upon the data.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice. The exceptions are the user (a human) and the generic computer elements: resource manager (software per se), processor circuit, memory, computing device (first/second) including instruction, compute cluster, application (software per se), central job service component (software per se) and interface (software per se) including instruction, compute cluster, application (software per se), central job service component (software per se) and interface (software per se).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: resource manager (software per se), processor circuit, memory, computing device (first/second) including instruction, compute cluster, application (software per se), central job service component (software per se) and interface (software per se) including instruction, compute cluster, application (software per se), central job service component (software per se) and interface (software per se), compute cluster, application (software per se), central job service component (software per se) and interface (software per se). These generic computing components are merely used to receive, process or provide data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 15). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's resource management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)¬ (h)), claims 1-20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited resource manager (software per se), processor circuit, memory, computing device (first/second) including instruction, compute cluster, application (software per se), central job service component (software per se) and interface (software per se) including instruction, compute cluster, application (software per se), central job service component (software per se) and interface (software per se)," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing and under the 2019 Revised Guidance, that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of allocates a first node of the computer cluster describes the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a resource manager (software per se), processor circuit, memory, computing device (first/second) including instruction, compute cluster, application (software per se), central job service component (software per se) and interface (software per se) nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the steps receives launch instructions associated with an application is directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The steps of transmits a first launch signal to the first node and provide an endpoint value to the first/second computing device are directed to insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. data output; the launch signal may or may not actually be received by or subsequently acted upon by the first node; the endpoint value provided to the first/second computing device may or may not actually be received by or subsequently acted upon by the first/second computing device). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer/computing device does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic resource manager (software per se), processor circuit, memory, computing device (first/second) including instruction, compute cluster, application (software per se), central job service component (software per se) and interface (software per se) are each recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of retrieving, processing or providing data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the receives, transmits and provide steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, 11-15 and 17-20, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of resource management and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1, 10 and 16.
Claims 2 further limits the abstract idea by receiving job instructions and causing the application to be launched (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 3 further limits the abstract idea by determining the application has not been launched, generating and transmit application launch instructions (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 4, 11 and 17 further limit the abstract idea by receives application launch instructions, allocates a second cluster node and transmits a second launch signal (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 5, 12 and 18 further limit the abstract idea by receiving a request to allocation a third node and allocates a third node (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 6, 13 and 19 further limit the abstract idea by determine an instance has failed, allocates a second node and launches a second instance (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 7 and 14 further limit the abstract idea by determining the interface has failed to transmit a heartbeat signal (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 8 and 15 further limits the abstract idea by determine a second instance has failed and launching instances of the interfaces failing and an error message (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 9 and 20 further limit the abstract idea by including a resource manager and the computer device is external to the cluster (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding claims 1-20, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a resource manager (software per se), processor circuit, memory, computing device (first/second) including instruction, compute cluster, application (software per se), central job service component (software per se) and interface (software per se) at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 15). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. memory, processor, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a resource manager (software per se), processor circuit, memory, computing device (first/second) including instruction, compute cluster, application (software per se), central job service component (software per se) and interface (software per se) including instruction, compute cluster, application (software per se), central job service component (software per se) and interface (software per se)s merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 15). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625