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 .
This communication is in response to Amendment filed on December 1, 2025. Claims 1-6 and 9-13 are pending. Claims 1 and 9-13 are amended. Claims 7 and 8 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Referring to the objections to claim 1, 3-7 and 13, Applicant’s cancellation of claim 7 is acknowledged. As such the objection to claim 7 is withdrawn. With respect to claim 13, Applicant’s amendments to the claim is acknowledged and as such, the objection to the claim is withdrawn. However the objections to claims 1 and 3-6 are maintained because the claims have not been amended to overcome the prior noted deficiencies and furthermore, the new amendments to the claims also raise deficiencies.
Referring to the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 8-13, Applicant’s amendments to the claims and cancellation of claim 8 is acknowledged. As such, the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of the aforenoted claims are withdrawn.
Referring to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-13, as amended, Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been considered by the Examiner but are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims, as amended, recite automated machine-executed operations that operate on large volumes of cloud-resource metadata obtained from multiple remote platforms and are directed to an improvement in multi-cloud technology specifically, through the automatic ingestion of cloud-resource metadata from multiple cloud providers and execution of hierarchical baseline-matching logic that enables real-time, scalable enforcement that humans cannot perform. In addition, the automatic generation of corrective actions in response to violations is said to result in the change of the state of the cloud system. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner submits that although Applicant argues that the steps performed are automatic machine-executed operations operating on volumes of cloud resource metadata across multiple platforms, the recitation of automatic operations and the cloud resource metadata across multiple platforms is merely linking the judicial exception to the technological environment of cloud metadata across cloud provider platforms and by using a generic computer processor (i.e. the tag governance engine).
Furthermore, the execution of baseline matching and the generation of corrective actions in response to determining non-compliant tag vales are considered mental steps and are abstract ideas. There are no further details as how the real-time scalable enforcement of baseline-matching is performed that would recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the ingestion of cloud resource metadata is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically a data gathering step that also does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
As such, Examiner maintains that the claims, even as amended, do not recite an improvement in technology are not patent eligible.
Referring to the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-7, as previously presented, claim 1 has been amended to include the subject matter of claim7 and 8, of which claim 8 was previously indicated as containing novel and/or non-obvious subject matter. As such, the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1-7 are withdrawn.
All other arguments not addressed are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as addressed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-6 and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: the word ‘hierarchical’ is misspelt in lines 8 and 19 of claim 1 as well as in claims 3-6; the term ‘an’ in claims 12 and 13 should read ‘a’. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The use of the term ‘Amazon Web Services’, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 1-6 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites: providing a hierarchical multi-cloud key value tagging governance engine; and with the hierarchical multi-cloud key value tagging governance engine: providing a plurality of tag values, wherein each tag is specified to have a value from a list of values, defines a set of baselines, organizing the set of baselines in a hierarchal manner, supporting a plurality of methods for matching the tag values, and specifying a plurality of conditions for each tag, obtaining, from a plurality of cloud platforms, cloud-resource metadata including tag values associated with cloud resources, and automatically executing one or more hierarchical baseline-matching operations using the obtained metadata to detect non-compliant tag values with respect to the hierarchical baselines; and automatically generating, in response to detecting the non-compliant tag values; a corrective action or notification to enforce the hierarchical baselines; wherein when the set of baselines are organized in the hierarchal manner then all specified cloud-resources have a tag ‘A’ with a particular value, and wherein the set of baselines are defined lower down in the hierarchy and these override an organization baseline for a specified cloud-account and the cloud tenant and a cloud workload.
The limitations of defines a set of baselines, organizing the set of baselines in a hierarchal manner, wherein when the set of baselines are organized in the hierarchal manner then all specified cloud-resources have a tag ‘A’ with a particular value, and wherein the set of baselines are defined lower down in the hierarchy and these override an organization baseline for a specified cloud-account and the cloud tenant and a cloud workload, supporting a plurality of methods for matching the tag values, specifying a plurality of conditions for each tag, executing one or more hierarchical baseline-matching operations using the obtained metadata to detect non-compliant tag values with respect to the hierarchical baselines, and generating, in response to detecting the non-compliant tag values; a corrective action or notification to enforce the hierarchical baselines, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a tagging governance engine” and automatically” performing the executing one or more hierarchical baseline-matching operations and generating steps, nothing in the claim steps precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the ““by a tagging governance engine”, defining a set of baselines, organizing the set of baselines in a hierarchical manner, wherein when the set of baselines are organized in the hierarchal manner then all specified cloud-resources have a tag ‘A’ with a particular value, and wherein the set of baselines are defined lower down in the hierarchy and these override an organization baseline for a specified cloud-account and the cloud tenant and a cloud workload, supporting a plurality of methods for matching the tag values, specifying a plurality of conditions for each tag, executing one or more hierarchical baseline-matching operations using the obtained metadata to detect non-compliant tag values with respect to the hierarchical baselines, and generating, in response to detecting the non-compliant tag values; a corrective action or notification to enforce the hierarchical baselines, in the context of these claims encompasses the user performing the steps mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes’ grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional steps of providing a plurality of tag values, wherein each tag is specified to have a value from a list of values; and obtaining, from a plurality of cloud platforms, cloud-resource metadata including tag values associated with cloud resources.
The providing and obtaining steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of providing a set of tag values and obtaining metadata including tag values associated with cloud resources from cloud platforms) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The combination of these additional steps is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. the tagging governance engine). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 tagging governance engine is a generic processor (CPU 208, Fig 2) which performs the providing and obtaining steps. Furthermore, these functions are similar to those found by the courts to be well- understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, namely the providing step similar to Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. (storing and retrieving information in memory) and the obtaining step similar to buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). As such, the providing and obtaining steps are well understood, routine and conventional activity performed by generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-6 and 9-11 depend from claim 1 and thus include all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claims 2-6 and 9-11 recite the same abstract idea of "mental process". Claims 2-6 and 9-11 furthermore recite that: (claim 2) the set of baselines comprise a set of requirements for a plurality of tags across an organization; (claim 3) the set of baselines are organized in the hierarchal manner defined at an organizational level; (claim 4) the set of baselines are organized in the hierarchal manner defined at a cloud tenant level; (claim 5) the set of baselines are organized in the hierarchal manner defined at a cloud-account level; (claim 6) the set of baselines are organized in the hierarchal manner defined at a workload level; (claim 9) the plurality of conditions for each tag comprises a condition that a tag must start with a particular string; (claim 10) the plurality of conditions for each tag comprises a condition that a tag must end with a particular string; and (claim 11) a regular expression is used to match against each tag value, which are all considered mental steps.
Claims 2-6 and 9-11 do not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or teach significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, claims 2-6 and 9-11 are therefore not patent eligible.
Claims 12 and 13 depend from claim 11 and thus include all the limitations of claim 11, therefore claims 12 and 13 recite the same abstract idea of "mental process".
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 12 and 13 furthermore recite: (claim 12) the plurality of conditions for each tag are recorded in a baseline to provide an tagging governance solution; and (claim 13) each regular expression that is recorded in a baseline to provide an tagging governance solution.
The claims recite the recording limitations at a high level of generality and are considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claims 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, the tagging governance engine is a generic processor (CPU 208, Fig 2) which performs the recording steps. Furthermore, these functions are similar to those found by the courts to be well- understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, namely Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. (storing and retrieving information in memory). As such, the recording steps are well understood, routine and conventional activity performed by generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As such, claims 12 and 13 are not patent eligible.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory} above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to place them within the four statutory categories of the invention.
Novel and/or Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claim 8, as previously presented, was indicated as containing novel and/or non-obvious subject matter in the Non-final Office Action dated 7/31/2025. Independent claim 1 has now been amended to include recitation of the limitations of claim 8 and as such is found to be novel and/or non-obvious for at least the reasons stated in that Office Action.
Claims 2-6 and 9-13 depending from claim 1 are also found to be novel and/or non-obvious by virtue of their dependencies.
The indication of novel and/or non-obvious matter was approved by Supervisory Patent Examiner Robert Beausoliel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Suttle et al (US 2023/0342179): directed to determining compliance of cloud resources across multiple cloud environments and automatic remediation of deviations based on remediation policies [Fig 1 and corresponding portions of specification; para 35, 42]; and
Venkatachari (US Patent 11,991,216) directed to: policy based multi-cloud asset security management that includes discovering cloud-based assets of enterprises and creating graphs representing relationships between the assets as well as detecting potential problems of the assets [Abstract; Fig 6A-B and 8 and corresponding portions of specification].
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 CHERYL M SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4018. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached on 571-270-1698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CHERYL M SHECHTMANPatent Examiner
Art Unit 2164
/C.M.S//AMY NG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164