CTNF 19/012,766 CTNF 86124 DETAILED ACTION 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This action is in reply to the application filed on January 7, 2025. 07-03-fti AIA The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Claims 32-51 have been added. 12-151-10 AIA 12-51-10 Claim s 1-31 have been canceled. Claims 32-51 are currently pending and have been examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 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). The limitations on managing nodes, allocating nodes and terminating a service according to priorities recite functions directed to commercial interactions. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers 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 claim modified by adding generic computer components (processors) would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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 32-51 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (2006/0179106A1) in view of Lauro (6,912.229 B1) further in view of OI K (JP2003186686A). Claim 32 Turner discloses the following limitations: A computing system configured to manage execution of programs for users, comprising: one or more processors; and a system manager component that is configured to, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, manage virtual machine-based nodes, including to: (see at least abstract, figure 5A, paragraphs 0002, 0006, 0027 and 0029-distributed computing services to provide a virtualization of distributed computing over a network of resources). Furthermore, Lauro discloses user’s hierarchies and priority access according to contracts: allocate a group of virtual machine based nodes for guaranteed availability; (see at least column 1 lines 65-67 and column 4 lines 15-40-contracts with guarantee availability). provide availability of a higher priority virtual machine based node of the group, comprising: (see at least column 7 lines 5-15-highest level contract are always serviced first). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the priority teachings in Lauro to the invention of Turner in order to improve customer's satisfaction (Lauro column 2 lines 15-45). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity. In Lauro, resources are released rather than terminated. The combination Turner/Lauro does not explicitly discloses the following limitations: 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. However, OI K in at least paragraph 0062 discloses deciding which program to allocate resources to or to terminate according to priorities. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination Turner/Lauro with the teachings in OI K in order to provide efficient management of shared resources (OI K paragraph 0062). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity. Claim 33 Turner discloses that a given node may run out of resources (paragraph 0005). Lauro discloses user’s hierarchies and priority access according to contracts. The combination Turner/Lauro does not explicitly discloses the following limitations: wherein: said terminate a lower priority virtual machine based node of the group comprises: determine that the higher priority virtual machine based node is unavailable; and terminate the lower priority virtual machine based node of the group to free up resources for the unavailable higher priority virtual machine. However, OI K in at least paragraph 0062 discloses deciding which program to allocate resources to or to terminate according to priorities. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combination Turner/Lauro with the teachings in OI K in order to provide efficient management of shared resources (OI K paragraph 0062). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity. Claim 34 Furthermore, Turner discloses the following limitations: restart, based upon subsequent availability of the freed up resources, the terminated lower priority virtual machine based node of the group. (see at least paragraph 0045). Claim 35 Furthermore, Turner discloses the following limitations: configured to: prior to said terminate and to enable said restart, save, to a data store, an execution state of the lower priority virtual machine based node. (see at least paragraph 0045). Claim 36 Furthermore, Lauro discloses the following limitations: wherein to provide said guaranteed availability the computing system of claim 34 is configured to: guarantee ongoing use of the higher priority virtual machine based node of the group to continue until a subsequent release time. (see at least column 7 lines 5-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the priority teachings in Lauro to the invention of Turner in order to improve customer's satisfaction (Lauro column 2 lines 15-45). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity. Claim 37 Furthermore, Lauro discloses the following limitations: wherein said subsequent release time comprises: a release time based on an indication received, via a client from a user, to release the higher priority virtual machine based node of the group; or a release time based upon design. (see at least abstract and column 2 lines 1-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the priority teachings in Lauro to the invention of Turner in order to improve customer's satisfaction (Lauro column 2 lines 15-45). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity. Claim 38 Furthermore, Lauro discloses the following limitations: wherein said subsequent release time is determined based at least in part upon a guarantee that use of the higher priority virtual machine based node of the group will not preempted for other purposes. (see at least abstract and column 2 lines 1-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the priority teachings in Lauro to the invention of Turner in order to improve customer's satisfaction (Lauro column 2 lines 15-45). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have conceived the idea of creating such configuration. Moreover, the claimed subject matter would have been no more than a predictable combination of known techniques according to their respective purposes within routine skill and creativity. As per claims 39-51, claims 39-51 recite substantially similar limitations to claims 32-38 and are therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above. CONCLUSION 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 /FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Application/Control Number: 19/012,766 Page 2 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 19/012,766 Page 3 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 19/012,766 Page 4 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 19/012,766 Page 5 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 19/012,766 Page 6 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 19/012,766 Page 7 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 19/012,766 Page 8 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 19/012,766 Page 9 Art Unit: 3627
Prosecution Insights