DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final office action in response to the communications received on August 11, 2026.
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claims 36, 38, 45 and 51 have been amended.
Claims 1-31 have been canceled.
Claims 32-51 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
Applicant amendments to claims 36, 38, 45 and 51 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments regarding prior art rejections have been considered and found persuasive. Prior art rejections have been withdrawn. Applicants’ arguments regarding 101 rejections have been considered but not found persuasive. Applicant argues:
The claims do not recite certain methods of organizing human activity.
Examiner’s Response: The claims describe managing execution of programs
for users including terminating a lower priority virtual machine-based node of a group to free up resources for higher priority virtual machine-based node of the group which is a commercial interaction involving instructions, contracts, obligations and agreements. Paragraph 0011 on Applicant’s specification discloses that a user may be given preferential or other dedicated access to execute programs based on one or more factors such as fees paid by the user, an agreement to a contractual obligation for using the dedicated access for a period of time and/or subject to other conditions, etc. The claims are clearly directed to an abstract idea.
The claims recite significantly more and are integrated into a practical application.
Examiner’s Response: The additional limitations recite a general computer performing general computer functions. Simply reciting a general computer performing general functions, does not take the claims out of a method of organizing a human activity grouping. There is no new technology or any technological improvement involved. To shut down a virtual machine-based node does not represent any improvement to the technology. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform a method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 32-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.”
Regarding Claims 32, 39 and 46, the claims describe a system and method for allocating resources according to priorities which is a method of organizing a human activity (commercial interaction-contracts, instructions, agreements, obligations). The limitations on managing nodes, allocating nodes and terminating a node according to priorities recite functions directed to commercial interactions. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computer elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Generic computer components performing generic computer functions alone, do not amount to significantly more that an abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the method of organizing a human activity grouping. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claims modified by adding generic computer components (processors) would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicants’ management of resources in the general field of computer resource management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that even in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computers to perform the managing, allocating and terminating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. There are no improvements to technology or any new technology involved. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 33-38, 40-45 and 47-51, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the components, the processing steps and the information used. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32-51 are allowable over prior art and would be allowed if 101 rejections are overcome. Independent claims 32, 39 and 46 as a whole, when viewed as an order combination of elements are novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Turner discloses a computing system configured to manage execution of programs from users. Turner describes a system that creates a resource group of a distributed computing service by selecting individual computing nodes that satisfy a set of resource requirements. Lauro, discloses user's hierarchies and priority access according to contracts. In Lauro, resources are released rather than terminated. However, the limitations on: terminate a lower priority virtual machine based node of the group to free up resources for the higher priority virtual machine based node of the group; and use at least some of the freed up resources from the terminated lower priority virtual machine based node to provide availability of the higher priority virtual machine based node of the group in combination with the other limitations on independent claims 32, 39 and 46 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9-7.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/DENISSE Y ORTIZ ROMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3627 /ARIEL J YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights