Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 07/20/2026. Claims 1-20 were previously pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/03/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed July 20, 2026, with respect to claims (Remarks Page 8-9) have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (Roth et al., US 10089476 B1, IDS filed 08/03/2026). Therefore, a Non-Final is issued. For details, see the rejection (using Roth et al., US 2019/0034642 A1,which is continuation of US 10089476).
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
5.1. Claims 1-20 of instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,558,312 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variants of each.
18784683
US 2024/0380709 A1
16986164
US 11558312 B2
1. A system for supporting compartment quotas in a cloud infrastructure environment, comprising:
a cloud infrastructure environment provided at one or more computers comprising one or more processors;
a limit service data plane within the cloud infrastructure environment;
wherein upon a request for a resource to be provisioned in a compartment of a plurality of compartments of the cloud infrastructure being received, the requested resource being of a type of resource limited by a compartment resource quota associated with the compartment, a determination is made whether the provisioning of the requested resource would violate the compartment resource quota; and
wherein, based upon the determination, performing one of provisioning the requested resource or denying the request.
1. A system for supporting a usage calculation process in a cloud infrastructure environment, comprising:
a computer comprising one or more microprocessors;
a cloud infrastructure environment comprising a plurality of regions, wherein a tenancy is defined within the plurality of regions, wherein the tenancy is associated with a service limit, the service limit defining a maximum number of a resource type allowed to be created within the tenancy across all of the plurality of regions;
a compartment of the tenancy, the compartment belonging to a tree structure of a plurality of compartments, wherein the compartment is associated with a compartment quota policy;
wherein a requested transaction is received, the requested transaction targeting the compartment;
wherein, prior to starting the requested transaction, the requested transaction is verified by an identity plane of the cloud infrastructure environment;
wherein a determination, by a compute control plane of the cloud infrastructure environment, is made whether the requested transaction violates the compartment quota policy.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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.
6.1. 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 of this title, 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.
6.2. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6.3. Claim(s) 1-2, 7-9, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Mordani et al., (“Mordani”, US 2015/0120938 A1) in view of Roth et al., (“Roth”, US 2019/0034642 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mordani teaches, A system for supporting (Mordani, Abstract: providing multitenancy support in a cloud computing environment, [0049]: a quota provides a mechanism to limit consumption of a resource,quotas can be assigned to a tenant):
a cloud infrastructure environment provided at one or more computers comprising one or more processors (Mordani, FIG.1, [0028]: a cloud computing environment includes a computer);
a limit service data plane within the cloud infrastructure environment (Mordani, FIG.1, service management engine (SME) 104, service domain 110 , service applications 112, [0031]: SME104 (“data plane”), and service domain 110 including one or more service applications (apps) 112 within the cloud environment. [0159, 167]: a data plane for managing quota and storing quota);
Mordani does not expressly teach
A system for supporting compartment quotas :
wherein upon a request for a resource to be provisioned in a compartment of a plurality of compartments of the cloud infrastructure being received, the requested resource being of a type of resource limited by a compartment resource quota associated with the compartment, a determination is made whether the provisioning of the requested resource would violate the compartment resource quota; and
wherein, based upon the determination, performing one of provisioning the requested resource or denying the request.
Roth teaches
A system for supporting compartment quotas (Roth, [0054]: quotas may be used to limit the number of compartments that may reside within a container, the number of certain types of compartments that may reside within a container), comprising:
wherein upon a request (S1506) for a resource to be provisioned in a compartment of a plurality of compartments of the cloud infrastructure being received, the requested resource being of a type of resource limited by a compartment resource quota associated with the compartment, a determination (S1508) is made whether the provisioning of the requested resource would violate the compartment resource quota (Roth, FIG.15, S1506: [0133]: receive a request S1506 to assign a quantity of instance quota to the compartment, verifies that the requested quota amount (S1508) does not exceed (“violate”) the remaining quota pool of the parent account); and
wherein, based upon the determination, performing one of provisioning the requested resource (S1512) or denying the request (S1510) (Roth, [0133] : If the requested quota amount exceeds the remaining quota pool of the parent account, proceeds to S1510 to deny the request. if the requested quota amount does not exceed the quota pool of the parent account, set compartment quotas to the requested quantity at S1512).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to support quotas in a cloud infrastructure environment, as taught by Mordani, to limit the request resource by a compartment resource associated with the compartment, as taught by Roth.
Doing so provides a method to support compartment quotas in a cloud infrastructure environment, and to limit the request resource by a compartment resource associated with the compartment (Roth, FIG.15, [0133]).
Regarding Claim 2, Mordani teaches, The system of claim 1,
wherein the limit service data plane has access to a plurality of (Mordani, [0049]: a quota provides a mechanism to limit consumption of a resource, by establishing an upper bound on the resource usage. Examples of quota-controlled resources include CPU, disk, and the number of VMs in use. [0037-38]: assign a quota from the overall tenant quota to each sub-tenant).
Mordani does not expressly teaches
Roth teaches
(Roth, [0054]: quotas may be used to limit the number of compartments that may reside within a container, the number of certain types of compartments that may reside within a container; for example, configuring quota for a container to have a limit of possible five compartments hosting databases, ten compartments for virtual machines, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have access to a plurality of resource quotas, as taught by Mordani, to access to a plurality of compartment, as taught by Roth.
Doing so provides a method to have access to a plurality of compartment resource quotas (Roth, [0054]).
Regarding Claim 7, Roth teaches, The system of claim 1,
wherein the cloud infrastructure environment comprises a plurality of regions (Mordani, [0031-36]: wherein a tenancy is defined for the plurality of services applications (“region”)), and
wherein a tenancy is defined across the plurality of regions (Mordani, {0029, 31, 36-37}: a tenancy is defined for the plurality of services).
Regarding Claims 8-9, 14 see similar rejection to Claims 1-2, 7 respectively.
Regarding Claim 15, Mordani teaches, A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, including instructions stored thereon which when read and executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform a method comprising (Mordani, [0176]: A non-transitory storage medium having instructions stored thereon/in which can be used to program a computer to perform the method):
providing, within a cloud infrastructure environment provided the one or more computers, the one or more computers comprising a microprocessor, a limit service data plane (Mordani, Abstract: providing multitenancy support in a cloud computing environment, [0049]: a quota provides a mechanism to limit consumption of a resource,quotas can be assigned to a tenant. FIG.1, service management engine (SME) 104, service domain 110 , service applications 112, [0031]: SME104 (“data plane”), and service domain 110 including one or more service applications (apps) 112 within the cloud environment. [0159, 167]: a data plane for managing quota and storing quota).
Mordani does not expressly teach
determining, upon a request for a resource to be provisioned in a compartment of a plurality of compartments of the cloud infrastructure being received, the requested resource being of a type of resource limited by a compartment resource quota associated with the compartment, whether the provisioning of the requested resource would violate the compartment resource quota; and
based upon the determination, performing one of provisioning the requested resource or denying the request.
Roth teaches
determining, upon a request for a resource to be provisioned in a compartment of a plurality of compartments of the cloud infrastructure being received, the requested resource being of a type of resource limited by a compartment resource quota associated with the compartment, whether the provisioning of the requested resource would violate the compartment resource quota (Roth, FIG.15, S1506: [0133]: receive a request S1506 to assign a quantity of instance quota to the compartment, verifies that the requested quota amount (S1508) does not exceed (“violate”) the remaining quota pool of the parent account); and
based upon the determination, performing one of provisioning the requested resource or denying the request (Roth, [0133]: If the requested quota amount exceeds the remaining quota pool of the parent account, proceeds to S1510 to deny the request. if the requested quota amount does not exceed the quota pool of the parent account, set compartment quotas to the requested quantity at S1512.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to support quotas in a cloud infrastructure environment, as taught by Mordani, to limit the request resource by a compartment resource associated with the compartment, as taught by Roth.
Doing so provides a method to support compart quotas in a cloud infrastructure environment, and to limit the request resource by a compartment resource associated with the compartment (Roth, FIG.15, [0133]).
Regarding Claim 16, see similar rejection to Claim 2.
6.4. Claim(s) 3-6, 10-13, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Mordani et al., (“Mordani”, US 2015/0120938 A1) in view of Roth et al., (“Roth”, US 2019/0034642 A1), and further in view of Filachek et al., (“Filachek”, US 2017/0371712 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Mordani teaches, The system of claim 1,
(Mordani, [0159, 167]: a data plane for managing quota and storing quota).
Mordani does not expressly teaches
wherein the plurality of compartments of the cloud infrastructure environment is arranged in a hierarchical manner, and
wherein a mapping of the arrangement of the plurality of compartments arranged in a hierarchical manner is stored
Roth teaches
wherein the plurality of compartments of the cloud infrastructure environment is arranged in a hierarchical manner (Roth, FIG.6, compartment 606, 610, 612, [0011, 104]: the compartment 606 may have one or more of its own compartments 610 (“hierarchy”)), and
(Roth, FIG.6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to support quotas in a cloud infrastructure environment accessible by the limit data service plane, as taught by Mordani, to arrange the compartments in a hierarchical manner, as taught by Roth.
Doing so provides a method to support compartment quotas in a cloud infrastructure environment, the compartments is arranged in a hierarchical manner, and the mapping of the compartment is accessible by the limit data service plane (Roth, FIG.6, [0011, 104]).
Mordani-Roth does not expressly teach
wherein a mapping of the arrangement of the plurality of
Filachek teaches
wherein a mapping of the arrangement of the plurality of (Filachek, [0005]: creating a container to store resource usage of the hierarchical process group and the set of resource limits of the group identifier. The set of resource limits associated with the hierarchical process group is used to collectively monitor resource usage of a plurality of processes in the hierarchical process group; FIG.2, group identifier 202, hierarchical process groups (HPG) 204, container 208, [0024]: container 208A is created to store resource usage 206A of the HPG 204A and the set of resource limits of the group identifier 202)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to support compartment quotas in a cloud infrastructure environment, as taught by Mordani-Roth, to store the mapping of the arrangement of the compartment in a location, as taught by Filachek.
Doing so provides a method to support compartment quotas in a cloud infrastructure environment, and to access the mapping of the arrangement of plurality of compartment (Filachek, FIG.2).
Regarding Claim 4, Mordani-Roth-Filachek teaches, The system of claim 3,
wherein the plurality of compartment resource quotas is arranged in a hierarchical manner corresponding to the hierarchical arrangement of the plurality of compartments (Roth, FIG.14, [0131]: the account 1406A may have an assigned quota pool of ten database instances. At least some of the quota from the quota pool of the account 1406A may be assigned to the compartment 1408A, Compartment 1408A (“parent”) has a quota limit, which in this example is five. Compartment 1408B (“child”) now has a quota limit of five).
Regarding Claim 5, Mordani-Roth-Filachek teaches, The system of claim 4,
wherein determining (S1518) whether the provisioning of the requested resource would violate the compartment resource quota comprises:
checking the requested resource against the compartment resource quota (Roth, [0133]: determining that the requestor is authorized to assign quotas to the compartment);
determining a set of the plurality of compartment resource quotas applicable to the request (Roth, [0133]: verifies that the requested quota amount does not exceed the remaining quota pool of the parent account); and
checking (S1512) the requested resource against each of the determined set of the plurality of compartment resource quotas (Roth, FIG.15, S1512, [0134]: the compartment may be assigned a quota according to the requested amount; the requested quota amount may be deducted from the quota pool of the parent).
Regarding Claim 6, Mordani-Roth-Filachek teaches, The system of claim 5,
wherein determining the set of the plurality of compartment resource quotas applicable to the request comprises:
determining, from the hierarchical arrangement of the plurality of compartments, one or more additional compartments that are impacted by the request (Roth, [0133]: If the requested quota amount exceeds the remaining quota pool of the parent account); and
based upon the determination of the one or more additional compartments, determining the set of the plurality of compartment resource quotas, where each of the set of the plurality of compartment resource quotas is associated with at least one of the one or more additional compartments (Roth, [0133]: the request may not be denied, but rather the quota pool of the parent may be increased by an amount necessary to support the quota amount requested for the child compartment).
Regarding Claims 10-13, see similar rejection to Claims 3-6 respectively.
Regarding Claims 17-20, see similar rejection to Claims 3-6 respectively.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Kishan et al., US 2006/0190482 A1: Resource Management Method For Computing Device E.g. Laptop Computer, Involves Validating Client Request By Resource Provider, If Commit Increased By Request Amount Does Not Cause Commit To Exceed Maximum Limit.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHHIAN (AMY) LING whose telephone number is (571)270-1074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 ET.
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, MOO JEONG can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/C.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 2418
/MICHAEL A KELLER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights