DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is responsive to the application filed November 15th, 2024. Pre-liminary amendments filed January 21st, 2025 amend claims 1-19 and add claim 20. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/31/25, 5/12/25, and 11/13/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (method), 9 (apparatus), 17 (server), 18 (system-on-a-chip), 19 (computer program product) and dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 20, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite obtaining available resource status information of a cloud server cluster, wherein the available resource status information comprises: available cloud resource capacities or available cloud resource flavors of the cloud server cluster in different future periods; generating cloud service price information based on the available resource status information, wherein the cloud service price information comprises price information of the available cloud resources flavors; and sending the cloud service price information to a user equipment (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are generating cloud service price information based on the available resource status information, which is commercial interactions in the form of sales activity. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are generating cloud service price information based on the available resource status information, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claimed limitations are generating cloud service price information based on the available resource status information, which is an observation, judgment, and evaluation of the human mind. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are generating cloud service price information based on the available resource status information, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
In addition, dependent claims 2-4, 8, 10-12, 16, and 20 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the generation of cloud service price information based on the plan information; the available resource flavor requirements; and generation cloud service discount information. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include commercial interactions such as sales activity and mental processes. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas. Dependent claims 5-7 and 13-15 will be discussed in Prong 2 analysis below.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “obtaining available resource status information of a cloud server cluster, wherein the available resource status information comprises: available cloud resource capacities or available cloud resource flavors of the cloud server cluster in different future periods; sending the cloud service price information to a user equipment” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “a cloud server cluster; a user equipment; An apparatus; a transceiver; a processor coupled to the transceiver; a management server; A management server comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions; A system-on-a-chip; A computer program product comprising computer-executable; instructions that are stored on anon-transitory computer-readable medium and that, when executed by a processor cause an apparatus to” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claims 2-4, 8, 10-12, 16, and 20 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 2, 5-8, 10, 13-16, and 20 additionally recite “receiving, before obtaining the available resource status information, plan information from the user equipment, wherein the plan information provides a cloud resource requirement plan of the user equipment for a management server and comprises a cloud resource period requirement or a cloud resource flavor requirement”; “receiving subscription information from the user equipment, wherein the subscription information confirms the cloud service price information corresponding to plan information”; “receiving a query request from the user equipment; and sending the available resource status information and the cloud service price information to the user equipment based on the query request”; and “receiving subscription information from the user equipment, wherein the subscription information comprises a cloud resource of at least one selected flavor and a price of the cloud resource” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “transceiver”, “processor”, and “apparatus” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “a cloud server cluster; a user equipment; An apparatus; a transceiver; a processor coupled to the transceiver; a management server; A management server comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions; A system-on-a-chip; A computer program product comprising computer-executable; instructions that are stored on anon-transitory computer-readable medium and that, when executed by a processor cause an apparatus to” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claims 1-8; apparatus claims 9-16; server claim 17; system-on-a-chip claim 18; and computer program product claims 19-20 recite “a cloud server cluster; a user equipment; An apparatus; a transceiver; a processor coupled to the transceiver; a management server; A management server comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions; A system-on-a-chip; A computer program product comprising computer-executable; instructions that are stored on anon-transitory computer-readable medium and that, when executed by a processor cause an apparatus to”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0138-0140 and Figures 1, 6, and 7. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “obtaining available resource status information of a cloud server cluster, wherein the available resource status information comprises: available cloud resource capacities or available cloud resource flavors of the cloud server cluster in different future periods; sending the cloud service price information to a user equipment” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-4, 8, 10-12, 16, and 20 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 2, 5-8, 10, 13-16, and 20 additionally recite “receiving, before obtaining the available resource status information, plan information from the user equipment, wherein the plan information provides a cloud resource requirement plan of the user equipment for a management server and comprises a cloud resource period requirement or a cloud resource flavor requirement”; “receiving subscription information from the user equipment, wherein the subscription information confirms the cloud service price information corresponding to plan information”; “receiving a query request from the user equipment; and sending the available resource status information and the cloud service price information to the user equipment based on the query request”; and “receiving subscription information from the user equipment, wherein the subscription information comprises a cloud resource of at least one selected flavor and a price of the cloud resource” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “transceiver”, “processor”, and “apparatus” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D'alesandre (U.S 2017/0358017 A1).
Claims 1, 9, 17, 18, and 19
Regarding Claim 1, D’alesandre discloses the following:
A method, comprising [see at least Paragraph 0004 for reference to methods of adjusting a pricing scheme by which a user is charged for computing resources based on a level of control over a job scheduling; Paragraph 0005 for reference to the execution of a method of adjusting a fee charged for use of a computing resource in a cloud computing environment; Figures 2a-c and related text regarding a schedule-based pricing scheme]
obtaining available resource status information of a cloud server cluster, wherein the available resource status information comprises: available cloud resource capacities or available cloud resource flavors of the cloud server cluster in different future periods [see at least Paragraph 0047 for reference to jobs submitted to, for, or by an application may have associated resource allocations, memory requirement , and processing times represented by resources allocated or required from art, all, or several computing devices; Paragraph 0059 for reference to the system attempting to determine if there is an application instance available to service the job request; Figure 1a and related text regarding item 1070 ‘compute clusters’; Figure 2c and related text regarding 2210 ‘Instance Available’]
generating cloud service price information based on the available resource status information, wherein the cloud service price information comprises price information of the available cloud resources flavors [see at least Paragraph 0049 for reference to the scheduling status of a job may be checked/evaluated to determine an appropriate pricing scheme; Paragraph 0049 for reference to the appropriate price level or discount indicator may then be combined with the tracked or estimated resource usage level to determine an overall price for the job and/or resources allocated to the job; Figure 2c and related text regarding item 2250 ‘Discount Price Level Charge’, item 2260 ‘Regular Price Level charge’, and item 2270 ‘Estimate/Track Resource Usage’]
sending the cloud service price information to a user equipment [see at least Paragraph 0027 for reference to users being charged for having a pool of resources available to draw on, and/or may be charged for actual resource consumption; Paragraph 0052 for reference to the cost may be charged to an account registered on the cloud computing environment wherein the cost may be directly passed to a financial transaction handler associated with a credit card or other payment scheme connected to the account or the job request]
Regarding claims 9, 17, 18, and 19, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 9, D’alesandre teaches an apparatus comprising a transceiver and a processor [Paragraphs 0041-0046 & Figure 1c]. Regarding claim 17, D’alesandre teaches a management server comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the management server [Paragraph 0032 & Figure 1a]. Regarding claim 18, D’alesandre teaches a system-on-a-chip [Paragraphs 0041-0046, 0069, & Figure 1c]. Regarding claim 19, D’alesandre teaches a computer program product comprising computer-executable instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and that, when executed by a processor, cause an apparatus [Paragraph 0015, 0045, & Figure 1a]. Therefore, claims 9, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected as being unpatentable in view of D’alesandre.
Claims 2, 10, and 20
Regarding Claim 2, D’alesandre discloses the following:
receiving, before obtaining the available resource status information, plan information from the user equipment, wherein the plan information provides a cloud resource requirement plan of the user equipment for a management server, and comprises a cloud resource period requirement or a cloud resource flavor requirement [see at least abstract for reference to establishing a first pricing scheme for the computing resource; Paragraph 0047 for reference to resources and jobs being scheduled or allocated either on a schedule or a scheme set by an application/application owner; Figure 2c and related text regarding item 2250 ‘Discount Price Level Charge’, item 2260 ‘Regular Price Level charge’, and item 2270 ‘Estimate/Track Resource Usage’]
further generating the cloud service price information based on the plan information [see at least abstract for reference to establishing a second pricing scheme for the computing resource , where the second pricing scheme charges differently for use of the computing resource than the first pricing scheme such that one of the first and second pricing schemes charges less for computing resource usage responsive to a determination that the user entity permits the automatic scheduler to make scheduling decisions for use of the computing resource without direction from the user entity; Paragraph 0049 for reference to the scheduling status of a job may be checked/evaluated to determine an appropriate pricing scheme; Paragraph 0049 for reference to the appropriate price level or discount indicator may then be combined with the tracked or estimated resource usage level to determine an overall price for the job and/or resources allocated to the job; Figure 2c and related text regarding item 2250 ‘Discount Price Level Charge’, item 2260 ‘Regular Price Level charge’, and item 2270 ‘Estimate/Track Resource Usage’]
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 3 and 11
Regarding Claim 3, D’alesandre discloses the following:
wherein each of the available cloud resource flavors is consistent with the cloud resource flavor requirement [see at least Paragraph 0047 for reference to jobs submitted to, for, or by an application may have associated resource allocations, memory requirement, and processing times represented by resources allocated or required from art, all, or several computing devices; Paragraph 0055 for reference to if a total number of application instances (including the detected idle instances) meets the minimum number of required instances, all the application instances are maintained]
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4 and 12
Regarding Claim 4, D’alesandre discloses the following:
wherein generating the cloud service price information comprises generating cloud service discount information when the available resource status information meets the plan information, and each of the available cloud resource capacities is greater than or equal to a target threshold [see at least Paragraph 0033 for reference to include data indicating a pricing level or discount level associated with a resource allocation or job execution task based on a scheduling or allocation scheme used by the scheduler; Paragraph 0034 for reference to pricing information indicating a pricing level or discount level may be generated by the scheduler and transmitted as part of a web - based information request such as a query or an HTTP or HTTPS request; Paragraph 0049 for reference to the appropriate price level or discount indicator may then be combined with the tracked or estimated resource usage level to determine an overall price for the job and/or resources allocated to the job; Figure 2c and related text regarding item 2250 ‘Discount Price Level Charge’, item 2260 ‘Regular Price Level charge’, and item 2270 ‘Estimate/Track Resource Usage’]
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 5 and 13
Regarding Claim 5, D’alesandre discloses the following:
receiving subscription information from the user equipment, wherein the subscription information confirms the cloud service price information corresponding to plan information [see at least Paragraph 0028 for reference to automatic resource allocation and job scheduling may be based on a desired performance level for an application, a maximum spending amount for an application in a given time period, optimization of resource usage and availability across the cloud computing environment, and/or job and resource access or execution priority related to service level agreements (SLAs) and/or subscription or pricing levels associated with the entities requesting or requiring the jobs or resources]
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6 and 14
Regarding Claim 6, D’alesandre discloses the following:
wherein before sending the cloud service price information, the method further comprises: receiving a query request from the user equipment [see at least Paragraph 0034 for reference to pricing information indicating a pricing level or discount level may be generated by the scheduler and transmitted as part of a web-based information request such as a query or an HTTP or HTTPS request; Paragraph 0048 for reference to an individual jo request being submitted or identified for processing]
sending the available resource status information and the cloud service price information to the user equipment based on the query request [see at least Paragraph 0027 for reference to users being charged for having a pool of resources available to draw on, and/or may be charged for actual resource consumption; Paragraph 0052 for reference to the cost may be charged to an account registered on the cloud computing environment wherein the cost may be directly passed to a financial transaction handler associated with a credit card or other payment scheme connected to the account or the job request]
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 7 and 15
Regarding Claim 7, D’alesandre discloses the following:
receiving subscription information from the user equipment, wherein the subscription information comprises a cloud resource of at least one selected flavor and a price of the cloud resource [see at least Paragraph 0028 for reference to automatic resource allocation and job scheduling may be based on a desired performance level for an application, a maximum spending amount for an application in a given time period, optimization of resource usage and availability across the cloud computing environment, and/or job and resource access or execution priority related to service level agreements (SLAs) and/or subscription or pricing levels associated with the entities requesting or requiring the jobs or resources]
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 8
Regarding Claim 8, D’alesandre discloses the following:
wherein obtaining the available resource status information comprises: obtaining scheduling information of the cloud server cluster, wherein the scheduling information comprises a submitted cloud resource plan, a cloud resource plan based on a historical cloud resource change, a to-be- reserved idle cloud resource plan, a total cloud resource plan, a maximum cloud resource plan of a single device, or an in-use cloud resource continuation plan [see at least Paragraph 0047 for reference to resources and jobs may be scheduled or allocated either on a schedule or scheme set by an application/ application owner or automatically by an automated resource/ job scheduler available as part of the cloud computing infrastructure, charges associated with the allocated/ scheduled resources may vary depending on the scheduling scheme used to perform the allocation; Paragraph 0049 for reference to scheduling status of a job may be checked/ evaluated 2010 to determine an appropriate pricing scheme; Figure 1a and related text regarding item 1050 ‘Maintenance Routines’ and item 1060 ‘Job Scheduler’]
generating the available resource status information based on the scheduling information [see at least Paragraph 0047 for reference to where resources and jobs may be scheduled or allocated either on a schedule or scheme set by an application/ application owner or automatically by an automated resource / job scheduler available as part of the cloud computing infrastructure, charges associated with the allocated/scheduled resources may vary depending on the scheduling scheme used to perform the allocation]
Claim 16
Regarding Claim 16, D’alesandre discloses the following:
obtain scheduling information of the cloud server cluster, wherein the scheduling information comprises a submitted cloud resource plan or a cloud resource plan based on a historical cloud resource change [see at least Paragraph 0047 for reference to resources and jobs may be scheduled or allocated either on a schedule or scheme set by an application/ application owner or automatically by an automated resource/ job scheduler available as part of the cloud computing infrastructure, charges associated with the allocated/ scheduled resources may vary depending on the scheduling scheme used to perform the allocation; Paragraph 0049 for reference to scheduling status of a job may be checked/ evaluated 2010 to determine an appropriate pricing scheme; Figure 1a and related text regarding item 1050 ‘Maintenance Routines’ and item 1060 ‘Job Scheduler’]
wherein the processor is further configured to generate the available resource status information based on the scheduling information [see at least Paragraph 0047 for reference to where resources and jobs may be scheduled or allocated either on a schedule or scheme set by an application/ application owner or automatically by an automated resource / job scheduler available as part of the cloud computing infrastructure, charges associated with the allocated/scheduled resources may vary depending on the scheduling scheme used to perform the allocation]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang, Zijun, Zongpeng Li, and Chuan Wu. "Optimal posted prices for online cloud resource allocation." Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems 1.1 (2017): 1-26.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
US 2017/0054592 A1
Olrog, Christian
ALLOCATION OF CLOUD COMPUTING RESOURCES
US 10,289,453 B1
Wei et al.
Allocating Computing Resources
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIN ELIZABETH GAVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 PM EST.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/KRISTIN E GAVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624