DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This office correspondence is in response to the application filed on November 27, 2024. Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-19 are amended, claims 3 and 12 are canceled, and claims 20-22 are newly added, as per preliminary amendment filed on 02/21/2025.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-22 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/14/2025 and 06/19/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the instant application on 11/27/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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 1-2, 4-11, and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (Statutory Categories)
The four categories of statutory subject matter are: (1) a process, (2) a machine, (3) a manufacture and (4) a composition of matter. MPEP § 2106.03.
These claims 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. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Independent claims 1, 10, and 19, recite a series of steps, and therefore, is a process that are directed to the abstract idea, and therefore is a process that are directed to the automation of a manual process (process in the human mind) including grouping of certain methods of observing, organizing human activity. Hence, the steps in the independent claims fall within the mental process grouping of abstract idea.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to a method, system, and a program product, and the underlying invention is merely for communication between public cloud-based virtual private clouds (VPCs) and a related product, and is therefore an abstract idea (Analysis: Step 2A-Prong 1). The claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The underlying invention is merely providing communication between virtual private clouds and related product, and is therefore an abstract idea. The claim recites the limitation of determining, creating, and allocating bandwidth for communication between different VPCs for the computing resource. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. determining, creating, and allocating related data). There is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, determining, creating, and allocating information indicating properties of the computing resources, the claim encompasses simply transmitting information of resources in his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic performance and does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
The claim recites additional elements of allocating based on the second configuration information and followed by the determining, and creating information step. The claims do not recite any limitations that improve the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The determining step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering computing resources to use in the determining, creating, and allocating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas 2019-01-07 13 The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (2A – Prong 2).
Therefore, claim fails to provide an inventive concept (2B). As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving step was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the example does not provide any indication other than a generic, off the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐ understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving and transmitting steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claims 2, 4-9, 11, 13-18, and 20-22 recites further collection of properties of the computing resources. The information collected do not add any significant more to the Judicial Exception as they do not add any improvement to the computer system or a technology field. Hence, the claims do not add significant more.
In light of the explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is directed in view of those case laws are directed towards the abstract idea. Lacking significantly more for the remainder of the claim, the invention is nothing more than an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delecroix et al. (US Publication 2024/0333648), in view of Sadasivan et al. (US Publication 2023/0396536) hereafter Sadasivan.
As per claim 1, Delecroix discloses a method implemented by a cloud management platform and comprising: determining first configuration information and second configuration information entered or selected by a tenant (paragraphs 27-28, 31: multi-cloud VPCs with supporting routing information); creating a global virtual private cloud (VPC) based on the first configuration information (paragraphs 30-31, 61-62: creating global VPC with workload configuration); and allocating, based on the second configuration information and through the global VPC, a first network address to a first VPC located in a first region and a second network address to a second VPC located in a second region to enable the global VPC to implement cross-region communication between the first VPC and the second VPC (paragraphs 60, 79, 83: VPC network traffic in accordance with private network addressing). Although, Delecroix discloses global multi-cloud overlay network within regions of VPC network, but fails to elaborately discloses a first network prefix to a first VPC located in a first region and a second network prefix to a second VPC located in a second region to enable the global VPC to implement cross-region communication between the first VPC and the second VPC.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sadasivan discloses the claimed limitation of a first network prefix to a first VPC located in a first region and a second network prefix to a second VPC located in a second region to enable the global VPC to implement cross-region communication between the first VPC and the second VPC (paragraphs 11, 46-47, 59-60: allocating and receiving prefix of network addresses to identify messages).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Sadasivans’ teaching of multiple VPCs with Delecroix. One would be motivated to communicate between cloud-based VPCs for resources for it to be distributed with network addresses for reducing workloads, thus providing routing efficiency for the system.
As per claim 2, Delecroix discloses the method further comprising: allocating a third network address to the global VPC, wherein the first network address comprises the third network address and a first region identifier, and wherein the second network address comprises the third network address and a second region identifier (paragraphs 64-66, 83); establishing a first network connection between the first VPC and the global VPC; and establishing a second network connection between the second VPC and the global VPC (paragraphs 61-62, 70-72: addressing information with subnets within different regions of the global VPC). Although, Delecroix discloses global multi-cloud overlay network within regions of VPC network, but fails to elaborately discloses allocating a third network prefix to the global VPC, wherein the first network prefix comprises the third network prefix and a first region identifier, and wherein the second network prefix comprises the third network prefix and a second region identifier.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sadasivan discloses the claimed limitation of allocating a third network prefix to the global VPC, wherein the first network prefix comprises the third network prefix and a first region identifier, and wherein the second network prefix comprises the third network prefix and a second region identifier (paragraphs 11, 46-47, 59-60: allocating and receiving prefix of network addresses to identify messages).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 2.
As per claim 4, Delecroix discloses the method further comprising: setting an access control list ACL of the first VPC, wherein the ACL comprises an entry for blocking communication between the first VPC and a third VPC (paragraphs 26, 72, 81).
As per claim 5, Delecroix discloses the method further comprising allocating a third network prefix to a first subnet of the first VPC and through the global VPC, wherein the third network prefix comprises the first network prefix and a subnet identifier (paragraphs 58, 61, 66-67).
As per claim 6, Although, Delecroix discloses global multi-cloud overlay network within regions of VPC network, a fourth network address to a virtual machine (VM) of the first subnet and through the global VPC or the first VPC (paragraphs 65-67), but fails to elaborately disclose allocating a fourth network prefix to a virtual machine (VM) of the first subnet and through the global VPC or the first VPC, wherein the fourth network prefix comprises a first region identifier indicating the VM supports migration to a third VPC managed by the global VPC and capable of communicating with the first VPC and wherein the first region identifier is different from a second region identifier in a fifth network prefix of any VPC managed by the global VPC. Sadasivan discloses the claimed limitation of allocating a fourth network prefix to a virtual machine (VM) of the first subnet and through the global VPC or the first VPC, wherein the fourth network prefix comprises a first region identifier indicating the VM supports migration to a third VPC managed by the global VPC and capable of communicating with the first VPC and wherein the first region identifier is different from a second region identifier in a fifth network prefix of any VPC managed by the global VPC (paragraphs 11, 46-47, 59-60: allocating and receiving prefix of network addresses to identify messages).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 6.
As per claim 7, Delecroix discloses the method wherein the third VPC is the second VPC, wherein the method further comprises performing migration of the VM from the first VPC to a second subnet of the second VPC, wherein a sixth network prefix of the second subnet comprises the third network prefix of the first subnet
As per claim 8, Delecroix discloses the method further comprising: allocating a bandwidth to the global VPC so that a data flow passing through the global VPC meets a requirement of the bandwidth (paragraphs 45, 49, 57-58); attaching, based on an identifier of the global VPC, a
As per claim 9, Delecroix discloses the method wherein the third network prefix is an Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) prefix applied for by the cloud management platform generated by the cloud management platform or applied for by the tenant (paragraphs 54, 60).
Claim 10 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
Claims 11, and 13-18 are listed all the same elements of claims 2, and 4-9 respectively. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claims 2, and 4-9 apply equally as well to claims 11, and 13-18 respectively.
Claim 19 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
Claims 20-22 are listed all the same elements of claims 2, and 4-5 respectively. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claims 2, and 4-5 apply equally as well to claims 20-22 respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sherif Makary (US Publication 2021/0357239) discloses systems and methods for managing computing virtual machine instances. A method may include obtaining a state of a virtual machine instance operating in a first cloud environment at a point in time; obtaining metadata associated with the virtual machine instance at the point in time; obtaining metadata associated with the first cloud environment in which the virtual machine instance is operating at the point in time; storing the obtained state of the virtual machine instance at the point in time, the obtained metadata associated with the virtual machine instance at the point in time, and the obtained metadata associated with the first cloud environment in which the virtual machine instance is operating at the point in time; terminating the virtual machine instance operating in the first cloud environment; and restoring, via the one or more processors, the terminated virtual machine instance in the first cloud environment or a second cloud environment at a later point in time.
Gilderman et al. (US Publication 2022/0171667) discloses the reliability of an application is improved by analyzing and implementing changes to application infrastructure that is represented, in some examples, as Infrastructure as Code (“IAC”). The system performs various tests on the infrastructure to determine how the infrastructure responds to failures and whether recovery procedures and monitoring services in place are effective and functioning properly. Various examples provide a measure of infrastructure resiliency that can be used to evaluate potential changes to application infrastructure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA B HUQ whose telephone number is (571)270-3223. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Emmanuel L Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/FARZANA B HUQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights