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 Arguments
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Applicant asserts that integration of a judicial exception into a practical application is achieved in terms of an improvement to computing technology and/or improving the functionality of the computer (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)) with the capability of listing a plurality of migrations to the compliant DC location for the one or more non migrations based on the determined priority weights, by using a Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) technique for the one or more non-compliant UC locations.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion. Examiner respectfully asserts that the purported improvement of listing locations using a Multi Criteria Decision Making technique, as drafted, is not an improvement to the functioning of the computer or any other technology or technical field. Rather, this type of improvement would be reflected within the abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Applicant asserts that integration of a judicial exception into a practical application is achieved in terms of an improvement to computing technology and/or improving the functionality of the computer (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)) with the capability of generating a list based for cloud computing is set by the enterprise considering all the user centers and regions. To effectively reduce the CFP and to make carbon-aware data placement decisions, the maximum permissible carbon footprint (carbon threshold) for each UC region/location is estimated considering its storage and compute requirements.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion. Examiner respectfully asserts that the purported improvement of generating a list, as drafted, is not an improvement to the functioning of the computer or any other technology or technical field. Rather, this type of improvement would be reflected within the abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “In line with Example 39, the claimed subject matter provides a method and system for carbon- aware storage service selection in the multi-cloud environment,” and “The embodiments of present disclosure herein address unresolved problem of optimal storage selection in multi-cloud environments. The embodiment, thus provides a mechanism to generate one or more solutions related to the storage selection in multi-cloud environments, satisfying a plurality of constraints. Moreover, the embodiments herein further provide a mechanism of repairing the solutions, i.e., fine-tuning the solutions to accommodate changes in one or more of the constraints.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 39 of the January 2019 PEG is eligible under 35 USC 101 because the claim does not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1. In contrast, the present claims recite multiple abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. Therefore, Applicant’s assertion in view of Example 39 are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Applicant's claimed invention recites the technical advancement in terms of optimal storage selection in multi-cloud environments. The embodiment, thus provides a mechanism to generate one or more solutions related to the storage selection in multi-cloud environments, satisfying a plurality of constraints. Moreover, the embodiments herein further provide a mechanism of repairing the solutions, i.e., fine-tuning the solutions to accommodate changes in one or more of the constraints.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully asserts that the purported improvement of fine-tuning solutions, as drafted, is not an improvement to the functioning of the computer or any other technology or technical field. Rather, this type of improvement would be reflected within the abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”
Accordingly, the present claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Applicant has incorporated the subject matter of claims 8, 9, which are allowable, into claim 1 and the subject matter of claims 17, 18 into claim 10 to overcome the rejections raised by the Examiner.,” Examiner has deemed Applicant’s assertion persuasive. The independent claims have been amended to include the subject matter previously indicated as allowable from former dependent claims 6, 8, 15, and 17.
Accordingly, the 35 USC 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority regarding IN20231076675 filed on 11/09/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-7, 10-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are directed to a method, claims 10-16 and 18 are directed to a system, and claims 19-20 are directed to one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums. Therefore, the claims are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite determining a score for each of a plurality of migrations and generating a list of feasible solutions, constituting an abstract idea based on “Mental Processes” related to concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Claim 1 recites limitations, similarly recited in claims 10 and 19, including “optimizing, via the one or more hardware processors, the initial allocation, comprising: identifying one or more non-compliant UC locations from among the plurality of UCs; determining a) a migration cost, b) an operational cost, and c) a carbon footprint involved in migrating each of the one or more non-compliant UC locations to a Data Regulatory (DR) and latency compliant Data centre (DC) location; constructing a migration matrix where changes in the migration cost, the operational cost and the carbon footprint for each non-compliant UC are computed, if it is migrated to a compliant DC; determining a priority weight for each of the migration cost, the operational cost, and the carbon footprint; and obtaining a plurality of migration solutions, for a plurality of combinations of the priority weights, comprises performing for each of the one or more non-compliant UC locations: listing a plurality of migrations to the latency compliant DC location for the one or more non-compliant UC locations; determining a score for each of the plurality of migrations based on the determined priority weights, by using Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) technique for the one or more non-compliant UC locations, wherein the steps of MCDM technique comprises: listing values of three objectives including the migration cost, the operational cost, a total carbon footprint, for each migration, carbon footprint considering the three objectives considering all migrations, dividing the minimal of each objective by its objective value and a resultant value is multiplied by the priority weight for that objective for each migration, wherein the values for the three objectives are summed up to obtain a weighted sum value, ranking the migrations based on the weighted sum value and a highest ranked migration gets highest scored, ranking the plurality of migrations based on the determined score for the one or more non- compliant UC locations; selecting a migration having highest rank from among the plurality of migrations; generating a list of the plurality of feasible solutions, wherein the plurality of feasible solutions are generated by selectively prioritizing a) a migration cost, b) an operational cost, and c) a carbon footprint for each solution, and wherein the plurality of feasible solutions are used as the plurality of migration solutions to optimize the non-compliant initial allocation of the plurality of User Centers (UC), wherein the plurality of feasible solutions are used with one or more other data to obtain a set of compliant solutions having (i) a minimal operational cost, (ii) a minimal migration cost, and (iii) a total carbon footprint value less than a predefined threshold, comprising iteratively performing in each of a plurality of iterations till a pre-defined number of iterations is reached: maintaining a fixed number of ordered solutions in the solution list and ordering the fixed number of ordered solutions based on an ideal function in each of a plurality of iterations, wherein the ideal function is constructed by taking the minimal of the three objectives from among the solutions in the solution list and the ideal function is used as a reference to determine to what each other solution deviates from the ideal solution; initializing a duplicate solution for each of the plurality of feasible solutions in a solution list, and replacing each UC-DC allocation in the duplicate solution by a DR criteria, latency, and carbon footprint compliant DC among a plurality of DCs, satisfying a pre- defined criterion wherein by replacing each UC-DC allocation, a new solution is obtained for each solution existing in the solution list; and including each newly generated solution in the solution list, if the newly generated solution if a determined quality of the newly generated solution is exceeding a measured quality of at least one existing solution in the solution list, and wherein while including the newly generated solution in the solution list, a solution having least value of measured quality among the solutions existing in the solution list is discarded the last solution or else discarding the newly generated solution, wherein, the pre-defined number of iterations is a value in a predefined range (0,1), and is dependent on (i) a current iteration count, and (ii) the pre-defined limit on iterations, such that the value of this threshold deceases with increase in iteration count, and wherein, the DC is carbon footprint compliant for an UC if a resulting carbon footprint of the allocation is less than an estimated UC-carbon footprint limit, where the estimated UC-carbon footprint limit for each UC is obtained based on: (i) storage and processing resource requirements of the UC, and (ii) a predefined threshold on the total carbon footprint.” These limitations, as drafted, but for the recitation of “via one or more hardware processors,” is a process that covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “via one or more hardware processors” language, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, with the exception of the “via one or more hardware processors” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass a user mentally or manually performing the steps of the claim.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11-16, 18, and 20 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Independent claim 1 recites limitations performed “via one or more hardware processors.” Independent claim 10 recites the system elements of “one or more hardware processors; a communication interface; and a memory storing a plurality of instructions, wherein the plurality of instructions cause the one or more hardware processors to.” Claim 19 recites “one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums comprising one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause” within the preamble of the claim. Independent claim 1 recites the limitation, similarly recited in claims 10 and 19, of “receiving, via one or more hardware processors, information on a non-compliant initial allocation of a plurality of User Centers (UC), a plurality of enterprise user requirements, and specifications of one or more service providers as input data.” This additional element is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Independent claim 1 recites the limitations, similarly recited in claims 10 and 19, of “performing the migration to the DC for the highest ranked migration” and “migrating each of the one or more non-compliant UC locations to the latency compliant DC location, using the selected migration as a feasible solution.” MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11-16, 18, and 20 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent claim 1 recites limitations performed “via one or more hardware processors.” Independent claim 10 recites the system elements of “one or more hardware processors; a communication interface; and a memory storing a plurality of instructions, wherein the plurality of instructions cause the one or more hardware processors to.” Claim 19 recites “one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums comprising one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause” within the preamble of the claim. Independent claim 1 recites the limitation, similarly recited in claims 10 and 19, of “receiving, via one or more hardware processors, information on a non-compliant initial allocation of a plurality of User Centers (UC), a plurality of enterprise user requirements, and specifications of one or more service providers as input data.” This additional element is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Independent claim 1 recites the limitations, similarly recited in claims 10 and 19, of “performing the migration to the DC for the highest ranked migration” and “migrating each of the one or more non-compliant UC locations to the latency compliant DC location, using the selected migration as a feasible solution.” MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental processes) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11-16, 18, and 20 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-7, 10-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 10-16, and 19-20 are allowable over the available field of prior art. The claims overcome the prior art of record such that none of the cited prior art references can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims. Therefore, the claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101, as set forth above.
Pandit et al. (US 20250068532 A1) discloses receiving, via one or more hardware processors, information on a non-compliant initial allocation of a plurality of User Centers (UC), a plurality of enterprise user requirements, specifications of one or more service providers as input; and optimizing, via the one or more hardware processors, the initial allocation, comprising: identifying one or more non-compliant UC locations from among the plurality of UCs; determining a) a migration cost, b) an operational cost, and c) a carbon footprint involved in migrating each of the one or more non-compliant UC locations to a Data Regulatory (DR) and latency compliant Data centre (DC) location; determining a priority weight for each of the operational cost, and the carbon footprint; and obtaining a plurality of migration solutions, for a plurality of combinations of the priority weights, comprises performing for each of the one or more non-compliant UC locations: listing a plurality of migrations to the latency compliant DC location for the one or more non-compliant UC locations; determining a score for each of the plurality of migrations based on the determined priority weights, by using Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) technique for the one or more non-compliant UC locations, ranking the plurality of migrations based on the determined score for the one or more non- compliant UC locations; selecting a migration having highest rank from among the plurality of migrations; migrating each of the one or more non-compliant UC locations to the latency compliant DC location, using the selected migration as a feasible solution; and generating a list of the plurality of feasible solutions, wherein the plurality of feasible solutions are generated by selectively prioritizing b) an operational cost, and c) a carbon footprint for each solution, and wherein the plurality of feasible solutions are used as the plurality of migration solutions to optimize the non-compliant initial allocation of the plurality of User Centers (UC). However, Pandit fails to explicitly teach or disclose constructing a migration matrix where changes in the migration cost, the operational cost and the carbon footprint for each non-compliant UC are computed, if it is migrated to a compliant DC; determining a priority weight for each of the migration cost; and wherein the steps of MCDM technique comprises: listing values of three objectives including the migration cost, the operational cost, a total carbon footprint, for each migration, carbon footprint considering the three objectives considering all migrations, dividing the minimal of each objective by its objective value and a resultant value is multiplied by the priority weight for that objective for each migration, wherein the values for the three objectives are summed up to obtain a weighted sum value, ranking the migrations based on the weighted sum value and a highest ranked migration gets highest scored, performing the migration to the DC for the highest ranked migration; wherein the plurality of feasible solutions are generated by selectively prioritizing a) a migration cost, wherein the plurality of feasible solutions are used with one or more other data to obtain a set of compliant solutions having (i) a minimal operational cost, (ii) a minimal migration cost, and (iii) a total carbon footprint value less than a predefined threshold, comprising iteratively performing in each of a plurality of iterations till a pre-defined number of iterations is reached: maintaining a fixed number of ordered solutions in the solution list and ordering the fixed number of ordered solutions based on an ideal function in each of a plurality of iterations, wherein the ideal function is constructed by taking the minimal of the three objectives from among the solutions in the solution list and the ideal function is used as a reference to determine to what each other solution deviates from the ideal solution; initializing a duplicate solution for each of the plurality of feasible solutions in a solution list, and replacing each UC-DC allocation in the duplicate solution by a DR criteria, latency, and carbon footprint compliant DC among a plurality of DCs, satisfying a pre- defined criterion wherein by replacing each UC-DC allocation, a new solution is obtained for each solution existing in the solution list; and including each newly generated solution in the solution list, if the newly generated solution if a determined quality of the newly generated solution is exceeding a measured quality of at least one existing solution in the solution list, and wherein while including the newly generated solution in the solution list, a solution having least value of measured quality among the solutions existing in the solution list is discarded the last solution or else discarding the newly generated solution, wherein, the pre-defined number of iterations is a value in a predefined range (0,1), and is dependent on (i) a current iteration count, and (ii) the pre-defined limit on iterations, such that the value of this threshold deceases with increase in iteration count, and wherein, the DC is carbon footprint compliant for an UC if a resulting carbon footprint of the allocation is less than an estimated UC-carbon footprint limit, where the estimated UC-carbon footprint limit for each UC is obtained based on: (i) storage and processing resource requirements of the UC, and (ii) a predefined threshold on the total carbon footprint.
Irwin (US 11477280 B1) discloses determining a priority weight for each of the migration cost, wherein the plurality of feasible solutions are generated by selectively prioritizing a) a migration cost for each solution. However, Irwin fails to explicitly teach or disclose constructing a migration matrix where changes in the migration cost, the operational cost and the carbon footprint for each non-compliant UC are computed, if it is migrated to a compliant DC; wherein the steps of MCDM technique comprises: listing values of three objectives including the migration cost, the operational cost, a total carbon footprint, for each migration, carbon footprint considering the three objectives considering all migrations, dividing the minimal of each objective by its objective value and a resultant value is multiplied by the priority weight for that objective for each migration, wherein the values for the three objectives are summed up to obtain a weighted sum value, ranking the migrations based on the weighted sum value and a highest ranked migration gets highest scored, performing the migration to the DC for the highest ranked migration; wherein the plurality of feasible solutions are used with one or more other data to obtain a set of compliant solutions having (i) a minimal operational cost, (ii) a minimal migration cost, and (iii) a total carbon footprint value less than a predefined threshold, comprising iteratively performing in each of a plurality of iterations till a pre-defined number of iterations is reached: maintaining a fixed number of ordered solutions in the solution list and ordering the fixed number of ordered solutions based on an ideal function in each of a plurality of iterations, wherein the ideal function is constructed by taking the minimal of the three objectives from among the solutions in the solution list and the ideal function is used as a reference to determine to what each other solution deviates from the ideal solution; initializing a duplicate solution for each of the plurality of feasible solutions in a solution list, and replacing each UC-DC allocation in the duplicate solution by a DR criteria, latency, and carbon footprint compliant DC among a plurality of DCs, satisfying a pre- defined criterion wherein by replacing each UC-DC allocation, a new solution is obtained for each solution existing in the solution list; and including each newly generated solution in the solution list, if the newly generated solution if a determined quality of the newly generated solution is exceeding a measured quality of at least one existing solution in the solution list, and wherein while including the newly generated solution in the solution list, a solution having least value of measured quality among the solutions existing in the solution list is discarded the last solution or else discarding the newly generated solution, wherein, the pre-defined number of iterations is a value in a predefined range (0,1), and is dependent on (i) a current iteration count, and (ii) the pre-defined limit on iterations, such that the value of this threshold deceases with increase in iteration count, and wherein, the DC is carbon footprint compliant for an UC if a resulting carbon footprint of the allocation is less than an estimated UC-carbon footprint limit, where the estimated UC-carbon footprint limit for each UC is obtained based on: (i) storage and processing resource requirements of the UC, and (ii) a predefined threshold on the total carbon footprint.
Examiner notes that de Moraes et al. (“Application of deterministic, stochastic, and hybrid methods for cloud provider selection,” January 2022) discloses the cloud provider selection problem includes utilizing performance indicators, wherein the each level’s score is the arithmetic average of the scores of each performance indicator in that level. Examiner further notes that Qi et al. ("A context-aware service evaluation approach over big data for cloud applications," 2015) discloses weighing the historical quality of service record of cloud service providers utilizing an arithmetic progression manner. Examiner further notes that Venkatesan et al. (US 10831387 B1) discloses removing candidate hardware devices form the current candidate lists of other entities in the device list set based on them failing to satisfy requirements. Examiner further notes that Alluboyina et al. (US 10817380 B2) discloses generating a ranked list of entities based on the number of devices in the original candidate list and the provisioning requirements, wherein selected hardware devices can be removed from any of the sets of remaining candidates for the entities in the list of unassigned entities in which the selected hardware device is included, and wherein the subject entity can be removed from the list. However, the prior art references of the record do not explicitly teach or disclose the limitations of “constructing a migration matrix where changes in the migration cost, the operational cost and the carbon footprint for each non-compliant UC are computed, if it is migrated to a compliant DC; wherein the steps of MCDM technique comprises: listing values of three objectives including the migration cost, the operational cost, a total carbon footprint, for each migration, carbon footprint considering the three objectives considering all migrations, dividing the minimal of each objective by its objective value and a resultant value is multiplied by the priority weight for that objective for each migration, wherein the values for the three objectives are summed up to obtain a weighted sum value, ranking the migrations based on the weighted sum value and a highest ranked migration gets highest scored, performing the migration to the DC for the highest ranked migration; wherein the plurality of feasible solutions are used with one or more other data to obtain a set of compliant solutions having (i) a minimal operational cost, (ii) a minimal migration cost, and (iii) a total carbon footprint value less than a predefined threshold, comprising iteratively performing in each of a plurality of iterations till a pre-defined number of iterations is reached: maintaining a fixed number of ordered solutions in the solution list and ordering the fixed number of ordered solutions based on an ideal function in each of a plurality of iterations, wherein the ideal function is constructed by taking the minimal of the three objectives from among the solutions in the solution list and the ideal function is used as a reference to determine to what each other solution deviates from the ideal solution; initializing a duplicate solution for each of the plurality of feasible solutions in a solution list, and replacing each UC-DC allocation in the duplicate solution by a DR criteria, latency, and carbon footprint compliant DC among a plurality of DCs, satisfying a pre- defined criterion wherein by replacing each UC-DC allocation, a new solution is obtained for each solution existing in the solution list; and including each newly generated solution in the solution list, if the newly generated solution if a determined quality of the newly generated solution is exceeding a measured quality of at least one existing solution in the solution list, and wherein while including the newly generated solution in the solution list, a solution having least value of measured quality among the solutions existing in the solution list is discarded the last solution or else discarding the newly generated solution, wherein, the pre-defined number of iterations is a value in a predefined range (0,1), and is dependent on (i) a current iteration count, and (ii) the pre-defined limit on iterations, such that the value of this threshold deceases with increase in iteration count, and wherein, the DC is carbon footprint compliant for an UC if a resulting carbon footprint of the allocation is less than an estimated UC-carbon footprint limit, where the estimated UC-carbon footprint limit for each UC is obtained based on: (i) storage and processing resource requirements of the UC, and (ii) a predefined threshold on the total carbon footprint.”
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hadar et al. (US 20220308939 A1) discloses evaluating the carbon emission footprint related to a cloud service provider
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 Sara G Brown whose telephone number is (469)295-9145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am- 5:00 pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270-5389. 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.
/SARA GRACE BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625