DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 07 January 2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-14 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes. Claims 15-18 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines. Claims 19-20 are directed to computer-readable media and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture.
Therefore, “are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 15, and 18: The limitation of “identifying a plurality of virtualized computing environments…,” “assigning a first set of virtualized computing environments…,” “assigning a second set of virtualized computing environments…,” and “causing, responsive to a request…” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can determine the presence of a group of virtualized computing environments, assign sets of those environments to various applications, and give an instruction to execute those applications.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 15, and 18 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 15, and 18: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements – “a memory,” “at least one processor,” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium,” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)) which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Therefore, “do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 15, and 18 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 15, and 18: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, 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 amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, “do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1, 15, and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 2-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as non-statutory for at least the reasons stated above. The claims are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the non-statutory deficiencies of claim 1. Specifically, each claim simply clarifies details of the various claimed elements or adds further mental processes that are similar to the steps in claim 1. Claims 2-14 do not add any steps or elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter. Similarly, claims 16-18 and 20 also do not add any steps or elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert their independent claims into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the plurality of applications" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the plurality of applications" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alicia Baturay whose telephone number is (571) 272-3981. The examiner can normally be reached at 7am – 4pm, Mondays – Thursdays, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in person, or video conferencing using a USPTO-supplied, web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) form at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamal Divecha can be reached at (571) 272-5863. The fax 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.
/Alicia Baturay/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
July 24, 2026
