DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the application filed 12/20/2024.
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 .
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 17/688,352 filed on 03/07/2022 (“Parent Application” now U.S. Patent Number 12,211,055). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Status of Claims
Claims 2-21 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
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.
Claim(s) 2-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 2-21, the independent claims (claims 2, 10 and 17) are directed, in part, to a method, a system and a processor-readable storage medium for allocating network resources.
Step 1 – Independent claims 2 (method), 10 (system), and 17 (storage medium) and their dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-21, 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. Claim 2 is directed to a method (i.e. process), claim 10 is directed to a system (i.e. machine), and claim 17 is directed to a memory (i.e. manufacture). However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process which includes observations or evaluations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to allocating resources to a plurality of users in a dynamic control network system… receiving, at a network gateway, information relating to the dynamic control network system having a plurality of users corresponding to a plurality of application traffic types that are associated with a plurality of end-user utilities in a form of a plurality of separable components; performing an iterative algorithm to solve a system optimization problem comprising maximizing a network utility objective, subject to an affine constraint on a first primal variable indicating a network resource application vector, including the plurality of separable components on a second primal variable equivalent to the first primal variable, wherein the iterative algorithm further comprises: obtaining resource allocation values for the plurality of users corresponding to a plurality of application traffic types from the first primal variable when a termination criterion of iterations is satisfied; receiving, at the network gateway, an incoming network traffic; and allocating, at the network gateway, network resources of the dynamic control network system for handling the incoming network traffic depending on an application type of the incoming network traffic and the obtained resource allocation values for the plurality of application traffic types. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process grouping of abstract ideas”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims recite additional elements: network system, system, memory, network gateway, processor, storage medium. These additional element in both steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 1 and 9 and related text and [0079-0081] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “The computer system 800 includes a bus 812 or other communication mechanism for communicating information data, signals, and information between various components of the computer system 800. The components include an input/output (I/O) component 804 that processes a user (i.e., sender, recipient, service provider) action, such as selecting keys from a keypad/keyboard, selecting one or more buttons or links, etc., and sends a corresponding signal to the bus 812. The I/O component 804 may also include an output component, such as a display 802 and a cursor control 808 (such as a keyboard, keypad, mouse, etc.). The display 802 may be configured to present a login page for logging into a user account or a checkout page for purchasing an item from a merchant. An optional audio input/output component 806 may also be included to allow a user to use voice for inputting information by converting audio signals. The audio I/O component 806 may allow the user to hear audio. A transceiver or network interface 820 transmits and receives signals between the computer system 800 and other devices, such as another user device, a merchant server, or a service provider server via network 822. In one embodiment, the transmission is wireless, although other transmission mediums and methods may also be suitable. A processor 814, which can be a micro-controller, digital signal processor (DSP), or other processing component, processes these various signals, such as for display on the computer system 800 or transmission to other devices via a communication link 824. The processor 814 may also control transmission of information, such as cookies or IP addresses, to other devices. The components of the computer system 800 also include a system memory component 810 (e.g., RAM), a static storage component 816 (e.g., ROM), and/or a disk drive 818 (e.g., a solid-state drive, a hard drive). The computer system 800 performs specific operations by the processor 814 and other components by executing one or more sequences of instructions contained in the system memory component 810. Logic may be encoded in a computer readable medium, which may refer to any medium that participates in providing instructions to the processor 814 for execution.” Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
The dependent claims including the recited iterative algorithm further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-21 are allowable over prior art but have other pending rejections as indicated above. Although some of the prior art made of record discloses systems and methods for network resources allocation, the prior art does not specifically disclose the sequence of steps as recited in the claims: performing an iterative algorithm to solve a system optimization problem comprising maximizing a network utility objective, subject to an affine constraint on a first primal variable indicating a network resource application vector, including the plurality of separable components on a second primal variable equivalent to the first primal variable, wherein the iterative algorithm further comprises: obtaining resource allocation values for the plurality of users corresponding to a plurality of application traffic types from the first primal variable when a termination criterion of iterations is satisfied; receiving, at the network gateway, an incoming network traffic; and allocating, at the network gateway, network resources of the dynamic control network system for handling the incoming network traffic depending on an application type of the incoming network traffic and the obtained resource allocation values for the plurality of application traffic types.
The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm 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, 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights