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 112 rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments. The claim amendments are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection. Accordingly, the 35 USC 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that the added features (a) are also additional elements, not an abstract idea, because the cluster hardware resource refers to cluster hardware, which may include hardware devices such as a memory, a central processing unit, a disk, a hard disk, and the like. Accordingly, the features (a) "providing a cluster hardware resource, and building a computer service and undertaking a computing task based on the cluster hardware resource, wherein the cluster hardware resource indicates cluster hardware, and the cluster data resource is quantification of the cluster hardware resource" cannot be performed solely by the human mind.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations underlined by Applicant are part of the additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 2. Therefore, this limitation is not part of the abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. However, Step 2A, Prong 1 below comprises several abstract claim limitations that are part of the abstract idea. Therefore, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertions and maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “In addition, Applicant respectfully submits that the above features (b) are also additional elements, not an abstract idea, and this is because the above features (b) are performed by the electronic device, not by the human mind.,” Examiner respectfully asserts that these limitations, as drafted, but for the language of “by the electronic device,” recite a process that covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “by the electronic device” language, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, with the exception of the “by the electronic device” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass a user mentally or manually performing the steps of the claim.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “(a)-(d) reflect an improvement in the functions of computer devices, such as the reduction of data-resource invalid usage and data-resource low-efficiency usage on the cluster hardware devices themselves.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present claims do not reflect Applicant’s purported improvement. The present claims are nothing more than mere use of a computer as a tool. Examiner respectfully asserts that any improvements of the claim, in the form of evaluation, would be an improvement to the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, which is not an improvement to the additional elements of the claims. 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 “Amended claim 1 describes how the technical problem is solved. Specifically, the additional elements describe a specific manner of data governance using an operation of combining files to reduce low-efficiency usage on cluster hardware devices, which provides a specific improvement over existing cluster hardware systems. Accordingly, Applicant submits that claim 1 is directed to patent eligible subject matter for similar reasons as the claims at issue in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016).,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present claims do not provide an analogous improvement to the computer to that of Enfish, specifically because the present claims do not improve the computer itself. The improvements of a self-referential table provide a specific benefit to the functioning of the computer, which is not the case in the claims of the instant application. The present claims are directed to evaluating data storage cost, which is not an improvement to the computer itself. Rather, this is an improvement to the abstract idea associated with “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, the present claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-9 are directed to a method, claims 10-13 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and claims 14-20 are directed to an electronic device. Therefore, the claims are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claims 1, 10, and 14 are related to evaluating the cost associated with various indexes, 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 14, of “the cluster data resource is quantification of the cluster hardware resource; receiving, a storage evaluation dimension and a computing evaluation dimension for evaluating the cost of the cluster data resource; receiving, a storage evaluation index in the storage evaluation dimension and a computing evaluation index in the computing evaluation dimension; receiving, an index value of the storage evaluation index including an invalid storage proportion and a low-efficiency storage proportion, and an index value of the computing evaluation index including an invalid computing proportion and a low-efficiency computing proportion; evaluating, a data storage resource cost in the cost of the cluster data resource based on the index value of the storage evaluation index, and evaluating a data computing resource cost in the cost of the cluster data resource based on the index value of the computing evaluation index; receiving at least one selected from the group consisting of: invalidly stored data stored by using invalid data storage resource, data with low-efficiency storage stored by using low-efficiency data storage resource, an invalid computing task executed by using invalid data computing resource and a low-efficiency computing task executed by using low-efficiency data computing resource; and performing a governance operation on the at least one selected from the group consisting of the invalidly stored data, the data with low-efficiency storage, the invalid computing task and the low-efficiency computing task, based on a storage diagnosis index in the storage evaluation dimension and a computing diagnosis index in the computing evaluation dimension.” These limitations, as drafted, but for the preambles of the claims, recite a process that covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “by the computing device” language, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, with the exception of the “by the computing device” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass a user mentally or manually performing the steps of the claim.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-13, and 15-20 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 14 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is directed to a method performed “by an electronic device” including receiving information. Claim 10 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements a method for evaluating a cost of a cluster data resource, and the method comprises,” which is recited in the preamble of the claim. Claim 14 recites “an electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a storage apparatus having at least one program stored thereon, wherein the at least one program, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to implement a method for evaluating a cost of a cluster data resource, and the method comprises.” Claims 1, 10, and 14 further recite the additional element of “providing a cluster hardware resource, and building a computer service and undertaking a computing task based on the cluster hardware resource, wherein the cluster hardware resource indicates cluster hardware,” and “performing a governance operation… so as to reduce data-resource invalid usage and data-resource low-efficiency usage on the cluster hardware.” 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 performing the steps of the abstract idea or other 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 process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 10, and 14 further recite the additional element of “wherein the governance operation comprises an operation of combining files, wherein the operation of combining files comprises: combining a plurality of first computer files into a second computer file through program codes, the plurality of first computer files are files received by a terminal device and/or a server, the data with low-efficiency storage comprises data stored in the first computer file, a first data storage amount of the second computer file obtained after the operation of combining files is greater than a data storage amount of any first computer file, the number of the second computer file obtained after the operation of combining files is less than the number of the plurality of first computer files, data stored in the second computer file obtained after the operation of combining files becomes effective storage data, and a data storage amount of the data with low-efficiency storage that has been governed by the operation of combining files is equal to the first data storage amount.” 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 performing the steps of the abstract idea or other 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 process or certain methods of organizing human activity) 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 2-9, 11-13, and 15-20 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 10, and 14 do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1 is directed to a method performed “by an electronic device” including receiving information. Claim 10 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements a method for evaluating a cost of a cluster data resource, and the method comprises,” which is recited in the preamble of the claim. Claim 14 recites “an electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a storage apparatus having at least one program stored thereon, wherein the at least one program, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to implement a method for evaluating a cost of a cluster data resource, and the method comprises.” Claims 1, 10, and 14 further recite the additional element of “providing a cluster hardware resource, and building a computer service and undertaking a computing task based on the cluster hardware resource, wherein the cluster hardware resource indicates cluster hardware,” and “performing a governance operation… so as to reduce data-resource invalid usage and data-resource low-efficiency usage on the cluster hardware.” 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 performing the steps of the abstract idea or other 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 process or certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 10, and 14 further recite the additional element of “wherein the governance operation comprises an operation of combining files, wherein the operation of combining files comprises: combining a plurality of first computer files into a second computer file through program codes, the plurality of first computer files are files received by a terminal device and/or a server, the data with low-efficiency storage comprises data stored in the first computer file, a first data storage amount of the second computer file obtained after the operation of combining files is greater than a data storage amount of any first computer file, the number of the second computer file obtained after the operation of combining files is less than the number of the plurality of first computer files, data stored in the second computer file obtained after the operation of combining files becomes effective storage data, and a data storage amount of the data with low-efficiency storage that has been governed by the operation of combining files is equal to the first data storage amount.” 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 performing the steps of the abstract idea or other 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 process or certain methods of organizing human activity) 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 2-9, 11-13, and 15-20 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 1-20 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. The closest prior art of the record discloses:
Dailianas et al. (US 20200314175 A1) discloses providing a cluster hardware resource, and building a computer service and undertaking a computing task based on the cluster hardware resource, wherein the cluster hardware resource indicates cluster hardware, and the cluster data resource is quantification of the cluster hardware resource; receiving, by an electronic device, a storage evaluation dimension and a computing evaluation dimension for evaluating the cost of the cluster data resource; receiving, by the electronic device, a storage evaluation index in the storage evaluation dimension and a computing evaluation index in the computing evaluation dimension; performing a governance operation on the at least one selected from the group consisting of the data with low-efficiency storage. However, Dailianas fails to explicitly disclose receiving, by the electronic device, an index value of the storage evaluation index including an invalid storage proportion and a low-efficiency storage proportion, and an index value of the computing evaluation index including an invalid computing proportion and a low-efficiency computing proportion; evaluating, by the electronic device, a data storage resource cost in the cost of the cluster data resource based on the index value of the storage evaluation index, and evaluating a data computing resource cost in the cost of the cluster data resource based on the index value of the computing evaluation index; receiving at least one selected from the group consisting of: invalidly stored data stored by using invalid data storage resource, data with low-efficiency storage stored by using low-efficiency data storage resource, an invalid computing task executed by using invalid data computing resource and a low-efficiency computing task executed by using low-efficiency data computing resource; and based on a storage diagnosis index in the storage evaluation dimension and a computing diagnosis index in the computing evaluation dimension, so as to reduce data-resource invalid usage and data-resource low-efficiency usage on the cluster hardware, wherein the governance operation comprises an operation of combining files, wherein the operation of combining files comprises: combining a plurality of first computer files into a second computer file through program codes, the plurality of first computer files are files received by a terminal device and/or a server, the data with low-efficiency storage comprises data stored in the first computer file, a first data storage amount of the second computer file obtained after the operation of combining files is greater than a data storage amount of any first computer file, the number of the second computer file obtained after the operation of combining files is less than the number of the plurality of first computer files, data stored in the second computer file obtained after the operation of combining files becomes effective storage data, and a data storage amount of the data with low-efficiency storage that has been governed by the operation of combining files is equal to the first data storage amount.
Martin et al. (US 20210125128 A1) discloses receiving, by the electronic device, an index value of the storage evaluation index; evaluating, by the electronic device, a data storage resource cost in the cost of the cluster data resource based on the index value of the storage evaluation index, and evaluating a data computing resource cost in the cost of the cluster data resource based on the index value of the computing evaluation index. However, Martin fails to explicitly disclose receiving, by the electronic device, an index value of the storage evaluation index including an invalid storage proportion and a low-efficiency storage proportion, and an index value of the computing evaluation index including an invalid computing proportion and a low-efficiency computing proportion; receiving at least one selected from the group consisting of: invalidly stored data stored by using invalid data storage resource, data with low-efficiency storage stored by using low-efficiency data storage resource, an invalid computing task executed by using invalid data computing resource and a low-efficiency computing task executed by using low-efficiency data computing resource; and performing a governance operation on the at least one selected from the group consisting of the invalidly stored data, the data with low-efficiency storage, the invalid computing task and the low-efficiency computing task, based on a storage diagnosis index in the storage evaluation dimension and a computing diagnosis index in the computing evaluation dimension, so as to reduce data-resource invalid usage and data-resource low-efficiency usage on the cluster hardware, wherein the governance operation comprises an operation of combining files, wherein the operation of combining files comprises: combining a plurality of first computer files into a second computer file through program codes, the plurality of first computer files are files received by a terminal device and/or a server, the data with low-efficiency storage comprises data stored in the first computer file, a first data storage amount of the second computer file obtained after the operation of combining files is greater than a data storage amount of any first computer file, the number of the second computer file obtained after the operation of combining files is less than the number of the plurality of first computer files, data stored in the second computer file obtained after the operation of combining files becomes effective storage data, and a data storage amount of the data with low-efficiency storage that has been governed by the operation of combining files is equal to the first data storage amount
Ocon Cardenas et al. (US 20230118846 A1) discloses detecting that the current usage by a first workload has decreased below the threshold usage and notify the user that the current usage is a non-transient state, as well as reserving a smaller number of resources on the node. However, Ocon Cardenas is silent regarding the price or cost of the resources. Furthermore, Ocon Cardenas fails to explicitly teach receiving, by the electronic device, an index value of the storage evaluation index including an invalid storage proportion and a low-efficiency storage proportion, and an index value of the computing evaluation index including an invalid computing proportion and a low-efficiency computing proportion; receiving at least one selected from the group consisting of: invalidly stored data stored by using invalid data storage resource, data with low-efficiency storage stored by using low-efficiency data storage resource, an invalid computing task executed by using invalid data computing resource and a low-efficiency computing task executed by using low-efficiency data computing resource; and performing a governance operation on the at least one selected from the group consisting of the invalidly stored data, the data with low-efficiency storage, the invalid computing task and the low-efficiency computing task, based on a storage diagnosis index in the storage evaluation dimension and a computing diagnosis index in the computing evaluation dimension, so as to reduce data-resource invalid usage and data-resource low-efficiency usage on the cluster hardware, wherein the governance operation comprises an operation of combining files, wherein the operation of combining files comprises: combining a plurality of first computer files into a second computer file through program codes, the plurality of first computer files are files received by a terminal device and/or a server, the data with low-efficiency storage comprises data stored in the first computer file, a first data storage amount of the second computer file obtained after the operation of combining files is greater than a data storage amount of any first computer file, the number of the second computer file obtained after the operation of combining files is less than the number of the plurality of first computer files, data stored in the second computer file obtained after the operation of combining files becomes effective storage data, and a data storage amount of the data with low-efficiency storage that has been governed by the operation of combining files is equal to the first data storage amount.
Reeve et al. (US 20220124014 A1) discloses measuring the system cost in terms of memory and processing resources, as well as determining the idle processing capacity of the system. Reeve further discloses identifying the idle processing capacity of a system being below a predetermined capacity threshold. However, Reeve is silent regarding identifying the idle memory capacity of the system being below a predetermined capacity threshold. Furthermore, Reeve fails to explicitly teach receiving, by the electronic device, an index value of the storage evaluation index including an invalid storage proportion and a low-efficiency storage proportion, and an index value of the computing evaluation index including an invalid computing proportion and a low-efficiency computing proportion; receiving at least one selected from the group consisting of: invalidly stored data stored by using invalid data storage resource, data with low-efficiency storage stored by using low-efficiency data storage resource, an invalid computing task executed by using invalid data computing resource and a low-efficiency computing task executed by using low-efficiency data computing resource; and performing a governance operation on the at least one selected from the group consisting of the invalidly stored data, the data with low-efficiency storage, the invalid computing task and the low-efficiency computing task, based on a storage diagnosis index in the storage evaluation dimension and a computing diagnosis index in the computing evaluation dimension, so as to reduce data-resource invalid usage and data-resource low-efficiency usage on the cluster hardware, wherein the governance operation comprises an operation of combining files, wherein the operation of combining files comprises: combining a plurality of first computer files into a second computer file through program codes, the plurality of first computer files are files received by a terminal device and/or a server, the data with low-efficiency storage comprises data stored in the first computer file, a first data storage amount of the second computer file obtained after the operation of combining files is greater than a data storage amount of any first computer file, the number of the second computer file obtained after the operation of combining files is less than the number of the plurality of first computer files, data stored in the second computer file obtained after the operation of combining files becomes effective storage data, and a data storage amount of the data with low-efficiency storage that has been governed by the operation of combining files is equal to the first data storage amount.
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:
Miller et al. (US 11294588 B1) discloses many events may cause a particular data element stored on a cluster storage device to become invalid
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