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 pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs filed on 01/06/2025 and 06/19/2025 have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.84(q) as recited here: "Lead lines are those lines between the reference characters and the details referred to. Such lines may be straight or curved and should be as short as possible. They must originate in the immediate proximity of the reference character and extend to the feature indicated. Lead lines must not cross each other. Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake. Lead lines must be executed in the same way as lines in the drawing. See paragraph (1) of this section."
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “display unit” in claims 13 and 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The structure corresponding to the display unit is a processing unit.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claims 1, 8, and 15 (line numbers refer to claim 1):
Lines 4-5 recite “wherein the specification indicates a first quantity of cores in the computing instance, and wherein the core allocation strategy indicates a core type in the computing instance” and it is unclear if the core type is regarding the first quantity of cores.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are dependent claims of claims 1, 8, and 15, and fail to resolve the deficiencies of claims 1, 8, and 15, so they are rejected for similar reasons.
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 a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 1, in step 1 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the claim
is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of
invention.
In step 2A prong 1 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the claim recites
a judicial exception. Specifically, the limitation of “to receive a creation request of a user, wherein the creation request comprises a specification of a computing instance and a core allocation strategy of the computing instance, wherein the specification indicates a first quantity of cores in the computing instance, and wherein the core allocation strategy indicates a core type in the computing instance” is a mental process. As shown in Fig. 5A of the application, this step merely involves a user selecting a quantity and type of core for a computing instance. Even mental processes that are performed on a computer are considered mental processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). This step involves a user mentally selecting a quantity and type of a core, and this selection is merely made on a computer.
In step 2A prong 2 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the additional elements, alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application for the following rationale:
The limitation "providing a configuration port " applies judicial exceptions on a generic computer. "Alappat 's rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court's Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions" so therefore applying judicial exceptions on a configuration port which is a generic computer does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The limitation “configuring the computing instance based on the specification and the core allocation strategy” recite mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). This limitation is recited at a high level of generality so it is not a meaningful limitation that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)(3)).
In step 2B of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the additional elements, alone or in combination do not recite significantly more than the abstract ideas identified above for the following rationale:
The limitation " providing a configuration port" applies judicial exceptions on a generic computer and therefore does not provide significantly more.
The limitation “configuring the computing instance based on the specification and the core allocation strategy user” recites mere instructions to apply a judicial exception so they do not provide significantly more.
As per claim 8, it is an apparatus claim of claim 1, so it is rejected for similar reasons. Additionally, it recites one or more processors coupled to the configuration port which recites generic computing components that neither integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 15, it is a computer program product claim of claim 1, so it is rejected for similar reasons. Additionally, it recites generic computing components that neither integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 2 (and similarly for claims 9 and 16), it recites a mental process and generic computing components that neither integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 3 (and similarly for claims 10 and 17), it recites a mental process and generic computing components that neither integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 4 (and similarly for claims 11 and 18), it recites mere instructions to apply the judicial exception that neither integrates the judicial exception into a practical application nor recites significantly more.
As per claim 5 (and similarly for claims 12 and 19), it recites mere instructions to apply the judicial exception that neither integrates the judicial exception into a practical application nor recites significantly more.
As per claim 6 (and similarly for claim 20), it recites a mental process and an insignificant extra solution activity that is well understood, routine, or conventional because it is directed to “receiving or transmitting data”. Therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and fail to recite significantly more.
As per claim 7, it recites attributes of the technological environment and an insignificant extra solution activity that that is well understood, routine, or conventional because it is directed to “receiving or transmitting data”. Therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and fail to recite significantly more.
As per claim 13, it recites a mental process, generic computing components and an insignificant extra solution activity that is well understood, routine, or conventional because it is directed to “receiving or transmitting data”. Therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and fail to recite significantly more.
As per claim 14, it recites generic computing components, attributes of the technological environment, and an insignificant extra solution activity that that is well understood, routine, or conventional because it is directed to “receiving or transmitting data”. Therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and fail to recite significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Quinn et al. (US 10680969 B1 hereinafter Quinn).
As per claim 1, Quinn teaches a method comprising: providing a configuration port to receive a creation request of a user, wherein the creation request comprises a specification of a computing instance and a core allocation strategy of the computing instance, wherein the specification indicates a first quantity of cores in the computing instance, and wherein the core allocation strategy indicates a core type in the computing instance; and configuring the computing instance based on the specification and the core allocation strategy (Fig. 10; Col. 11 lines 43-55 FIG. 10 illustrates an example user interface for launching VMs with specified quantities and combinations of host resources, according to some embodiments. In some embodiments, a provider network service may provide a user interface 1000 to an API for submitting launch requests for VMs. The interface 1000 may include, but is not limited to, a user interface element 1002 via which the customer can identify a machine image (MI) that is to be used to launch the VM on the provider network, one or more user interface elements 1004 via which a customer may specify combinations and quantities of host resources (e.g., CPUs, GPUs, memory, disk, networking resources, accelerators, FPGAs, etc.) that are required for the VM; Col. 6 lines 15-19 The host device 240 includes host resources 242 (e.g., one or more of CPUs, GPUs, memory, disk, networking resources, accelerators, FPGAs etc.) that can be assigned to VMs 248 when launched on the host device 240; Col. 9 lines 11-15 a customer has submitted a launch request for a VM that specifies two CPUs and one GPU for the VM; a slot 546C has been dynamically defined for the VM by the VM placement service that includes CPUs 570C and 570D and that also includes GPU 572C.).
As per claim 2, Quinn teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the computing instance comprises a plurality of core types, and wherein the core allocation strategy further indicates a second quantity of cores for each of the plurality of core types (Fig. 10; Col. 11 lines 49-55 a user interface element 1002 via which the customer can identify a machine image (MI) that is to be used to launch the VM on the provider network, one or more user interface elements 1004 via which a customer may specify combinations and quantities of host resources (e.g., CPUs, GPUs, memory, disk, networking resources, accelerators, FPGAs, etc.) that are required for the VM; Col. 9 lines 11-15 a customer has submitted a launch request for a VM that specifies two CPUs and one GPU for the VM; a slot 546C has been dynamically defined for the VM by the VM placement service that includes CPUs 570C and 570D and that also includes GPU 572C.).
As per claim 7, Quinn teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising displaying a configuration sheet to the user through the configuration port, wherein the configuration sheet comprises a plurality of core types and a second quantity of cores for each of the plurality of core types (Fig. 10; Col. 11 lines 48-55 The interface 1000 may include, but is not limited to, a user interface element 1002 via which the customer can identify a machine image (MI) that is to be used to launch the VM on the provider network, one or more user interface elements 1004 via which a customer may specify combinations and quantities of host resources (e.g., CPUs, GPUs, memory, disk, networking resources, accelerators, FPGAs, etc.) that are required for the VM; Col. 9 lines 11-15 a customer has submitted a launch request for a VM that specifies two CPUs and one GPU for the VM; a slot 546C has been dynamically defined for the VM by the VM placement service that includes CPUs 570C and 570D and that also includes GPU 572C.).
As per claim 8, it is an apparatus claim of claim 1, so it is rejected for similar reasons. Additionally, Quinn teaches an apparatus comprising: one or more processors coupled to the configuration port (Col. 5 lines 40-43 The provider network 100 may provide one or more services 104 implemented by computer systems comprising one or more computing devices on the provider network 100 that provide user interfaces; Col. 18 lines 24-26 computer system 5000 may be a uniprocessor system including one processor 5010, or a multiprocessor system including several processors 5010).
As per claims 9 and 14, they are apparatus claims of claims 2 and 7, so they are rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 15, it is a computer program product claim of claim 1, so it is rejected for similar reasons. Additionally, Quinn teaches a computer program product comprising instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and that, when executed by one or more processors, cause an apparatus to (Fig. 15; Col. 19 lines 14-23 In some embodiments, system memory 5020 may be one embodiment of a computer-accessible medium configured to store program instructions and data as described above for FIGS. 1 through 10 for allocating host device resources to VMs in provider network environments. However, in other embodiments, program instructions and/or data may be received, sent or stored upon different types of computer-accessible media. Generally speaking, a computer-accessible medium may include non-transitory storage media or memory media; Col. 18 lines 14-16 In the illustrated embodiment, computer system 5000 includes one or more processors 5010 coupled to a system memory 5020; Col. 18 lines 27-28 Processors 5010 may be any suitable processors capable of executing instructions).
As per claim 16, it is a computer program product of claim 2, so it is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3-5, 10-12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinn, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, in view of Yamato (WO2023144926A1).
As per claim 3, Quinn teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the computing instance comprises a plurality of core types (Fig. 10; Col. 11 lines 49-55 a user interface element 1002 via which the customer can identify a machine image (MI) that is to be used to launch the VM on the provider network, one or more user interface elements 1004 via which a customer may specify combinations and quantities of host resources (e.g., CPUs, GPUs, memory, disk, networking resources, accelerators, FPGAs, etc.) that are required for the VM).
Quinn fails to teach wherein the core allocation strategy further indicates a first ratio of a first physical core of the computing instance to a second physical core of the computing instance.
However, Yamato teaches wherein the computing instance comprises a plurality of core types, and wherein the core allocation strategy further indicates a first ratio of a first physical core of the computing instance to a second physical core of the computing instance ([0182] For example, if the appropriate resource ratio for a CPU is 2:1, with 1 VM costing 1000 yen/month and a GPU costing 4000 yen/month, and the user has a budget of 10,000 yen/month, then two CPUs and one GPU should be allocated.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined Quinn with the teachings of Yamato to be cost effective (see [0026] Once the resource ratio is determined through the above-mentioned <optimization of CPU and offload device resource ratio>, the next step is to deploy the application to the commercial environment. When deploying to a commercial environment, the amount of resources is determined while maintaining the resource ratio as much as possible to meet the cost requirements specified by the user. For example, regarding CPUs, let's assume that 1 VM costs 1000 yen/month, GPUs cost 4000 yen/month, and a resource ratio of 2:1 is appropriate.).
As per claim 4, Quinn and Yamato teach the method of claim 3. Yamato teaches wherein configuring the computing instance comprises configuring the computing instance based on the first ratio ([0177] To give a specific example, let's assume that a CPU VM costs 1000 yen/month, a GPU costs 4000 yen/month, a resource ratio of 2:1 is appropriate, and the user has a budget of 10,000 yen or less per month. In this case, two CPUs and one GPU are allocated and deployed in the commercial environment.).
As per claim 5, Quinn and Yamato teach the method of claim 3. Yamato teaches wherein configuring the computing instance comprises configuring the computing instance based on a second ratio different from the first ratio ([0031] Regarding resource ratios: The resource ratio is the ratio of the number of CPU, GPU, and FPGA instances. If there are one, two, and three instances, the resource ratio is 1:2:3; [0175] In this case, for example, the resource ratio is capped at 5:1; [0177] To give a specific example, let's assume that a CPU VM costs 1000 yen/month, a GPU costs 4000 yen/month, a resource ratio of 2:1 is appropriate, and the user has a budget of 10,000 yen or less per month. In this case, two CPUs and one GPU are allocated and deployed in the commercial environment).
As per claims 10, 11, and 12, they are apparatus claims of claims 3, 4, and 5, so they are rejected for similar reasons.
As per claims 17, 18, and 19, they are computer program product claims of claims 3, 4, and 5, so they are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinn, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, in view of Panchapakesan (US 20200319911 A1).
As per claim 6, Quinn teaches the method of claim 1.
Quin fails to teach further comprising: computing a price of the computing instance based on the specification and the core allocation strategy; and displaying the price to the user through the configuration port.
However, Panchapakesan teaches further comprising: computing a price of the computing instance based on the specification and the core allocation strategy; and displaying the price to the user through the configuration port ([0022] Therefore, the user interface for making the selections of the remote computing resources may present the pricing of each of the remote computing resources so that the user can see what the cost may be as he/she/they make their selections and/or modifications; claim 7 wherein the user interface is further configured to: provide an indication of a total cost for the respective resource selections selected for the custom virtual machine; [0049] The user device 128 may have one or more running thereon that may render the operation of the word processing program on a user display or user interface of the user device 128).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined Quinn with the teachings of Panchapakesan to let the user be able to view costs (see Panchapakesan [0022] Therefore, the user interface for making the selections of the remote computing resources may present the pricing of each of the remote computing resources so that the user can see what the cost may be as he/she/they make their selections and/or modifications).
As per claims 13 and 20, they are apparatus and computer program product claims of claim 6, so they are rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HSING CHUN LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8522. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9AM-5PM.
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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/Aimee Li/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights