DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are pending. Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are considered in this Office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/14/2025 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 of the current application (Hereby known as ‘498) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,229,411 (Hereby known as ‘411). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 20, Claims 1, 11, and 20 of the current application (‘498) recite substantially similar steps of '411 - Claims 1, 11, and 20 respectively.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 of ‘498 recite the steps of:
detect a projected overload condition from a projected demand for a resource;
generate a transfer extension request requesting an extension until a date that is after the projected overload condition;
send, to a second computer system, the transfer extension request requesting the extension until the date that is after the projected overload condition; and
provide access to the resource by the date in response to receiving from the second computer system a reply including an indication of a grant of the transfer extension request.
Whereas Claims 1, 11, and 20 of 411 states:
detect a projected overload condition from a projected demand for a resource;
select a resource demand requesting a transfer, from the computer system to the server, that is to occur prior to the projected overload condition;
identify a server associated with the selected resource demand requesting the transfer to the server;
generate a transfer extension request requesting an extension until a selected date that is after the projected overload condition;
send, via the communications module, the transfer extension request to the identified server requesting the extension until the selected date that is after the projected overload condition; and
initiate the transfer from the computer system to the identified server by the selected date in response to receiving from the identified server a reply including an indication of a grant of the transfer extension request.
These are obvious variants of each other as both recite substantially the same limitations. Further, elimination of an element or its functions is deemed to be obvious in light of prior art teachings of at least the recited element or its functions (see In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184, 186; 311 F2d 581 (CCPA 1963)), thereby rendering the elimination of any elements recited in the claims of the related patent (that are not recited in the instant claims) obvious.
Thus, Claims 1, 11, and 20 of the current application are obvious variants of claims 1, 11, and 20 in ‘411.
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.
Alice - Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite the limitations to detect a projected overload condition from a projected demand for a resource (Collecting Information, an Observation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. assigning resources, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), generate a transfer extension request requesting an extension until a date that is after the projected overload condition (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. assigning resources, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), send the transfer extension request requesting the extension until the date that is after the projected overload condition (Transmitting Information, a Judgment, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. assigning resources, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and provide access to the resource by the date in response to receiving from the second computer system a reply including an indication of a grant of the transfer extension request (Collecting, Analyzing and Transmitting the Information, an Observation, Evaluation and Judgment, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. assigning resources, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of outputting information related to ordered entity groups, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a computer system, a communications module, a processor coupled to the communications module, a memory, a second computer system, and medium, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of assigning resources, which is Managing Human Behavior, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. For example, providing access to the resource by the date in response to receiving from the second computer system a reply including an indication of a grant of the transfer extension request encompasses a supervisor or manager on one project deciding they would like to keep an employee/resource on a project, gaining permission, and then sending the request to another project manager who was the primary for that employee stating that there is now an extension, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for Managing Human Behavior, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The computer system, communications module, processor, memory, second computer system, and medium are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the collecting and transmitting steps above are at best insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount 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. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0067] Each of the remote devices 102 and 104 is a computing device. It may, as illustrated, be a desktop computer. However, the remote devices 102 and 104 may be a computing device of
another type such as, for example, a smart phone, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a notebook computer, a hand-held computer, a personal digital assistant, a portable navigation device, a mobile phone, a wearable computing device (e.g., a smart watch, a wearable activity monitor, wearable smart jewelry, and glasses and other optical devices that include optical head-mounted displays), an embedded computing device (e.g., in communication with a smart textile or electronic fabric), and any other type of computing device that may be configured to store data and software instructions, and execute software instructions to perform operations consistent with disclosed embodiments.”
Which shows that any generic computing device which stores data and software instructions can be used to perform the abstract limitations, such as a laptop, phone, desktop, etc., and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the collecting and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the computer system, memory, etc., nor the collecting and transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10 and 12-18 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no new additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claims 21 contains the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them such as by extracting information regarding the projected overload, with no new additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crubtree (U.S. Publication No. 2010/021,7642) in view of Rosen (U.S. Publication No. 2016/031,6388).
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 20, Crubtree, a system and method for Single-action Energy Resource Scheduling And Participation In Energy-related Securities, teaches a computer system comprising:
a communications module ([0086] software modules to perform the processes); a processor coupled to the communications module ([0086-89] processor with the modules/engines); and a memory coupled to the processor ([0066] medium and memory) storing instructions that, when executed by the computer system, cause the computer system to:
detect a projected overload condition from a projected demand for a resource ([0083] a server is configured to schedule a load at a point of interest);
send, to a second computer system, the transfer extension request requesting the extension until the date that is after the projected overload condition ([0083-85] the schedule is overridden to reduce the load/resource demand and the server is used to lower the load and thus this is rescheduled which uses multiple computers); and
provide access to the resource by the date in response to receiving from the second computer system a reply including an indication of a grant of the transfer extension request ([0074] access is provided to external systems with many devices at the scheduled time where in [0070] users provide access).
Although Crubtree teaches to generate a rescheduling request to reschedule the resource demand until after the projected overload condition as in [0083-84] where the schedule is overridden to reduce the load/resource demand, it does not explicitly state this is a transfer extension request nor does it explicitly teach explicitly state a projected overload condition from a projected demand for a resource.
Rosen, a system and method for scheduling time-shifting traffic in a mobile cellular network teaches a projected and estimated load as in [0119] and [0134] which estimate the load for an area to provide access to more resources as in [0175] and [0179] where load is accessed given the estimation.
Rosen teaches a transfer extension request to reschedule a transfer until after a projected event as in [0114] where a rescheduling avoids the peaks and valleys of the projections.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the detection of overload and shortfall conditions of Crubtree with the detection of these conditions of Rosen as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to problems in overloading and shorting of servers, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase network capacity during high load times or in certain areas as taught in [0118] of Rosen.
Examiner notes Crubtree teaches a method and computer-readable medium ([0066] medium for the method).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Crubtree teaches wherein detecting the projected overload condition includes detecting a projected shortfall event ([0060] a detected shortfall event).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Although Crubtree teaches the computer system, a second computer system which is associated with resource demand as in Claim 1 above, it does not explicitly state transferring the change in schedule and access based on a selection.
Rosen teaches lto select a resource demand requesting a transfer that is to occur prior to the projected overload condition, wherein the second computer system is associated with the selected resource demand and the transfer extension request is sent to the second computer system associated with the selected resource demand ([0042-43] where a transfer request is selected by an option of the user on multiple different computers and devices such as phones).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the detection of overload and shortfall conditions of Crubtree with the detection of these conditions of Rosen as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to problems in overloading and shorting of servers, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase network capacity during high load times or in certain areas as taught in [0118] of Rosen.
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Crubtree teaches wherein the transfer is from the computer system to the second computer system ([0083-85] the schedule is overridden to reduce the load/resource demand and the server is used to lower the load and thus this is rescheduled which uses multiple computers)
Although Crubtree teaches to generate a rescheduling request to reschedule the resource demand until after the projected overload condition as in [0083-84] where the schedule is overridden to reduce the load/resource demand, it does not explicitly state this is a transfer extension request nor does it explicitly teach explicitly state a projected overload condition from a projected demand for a resource.
Rosen teaches a projected and estimated load as in [0119] and [0134] which estimate the load for an area to provide access to more resources as in [0175] and [0179] where load is accessed given the estimation.
Rosen teaches a transfer extension request to reschedule a transfer until after a projected event as in [0114] where a rescheduling avoids the peaks and valleys of the projections.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the detection of overload and shortfall conditions of Crubtree with the detection of these conditions of Rosen as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to problems in overloading and shorting of servers, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase network capacity during high load times or in certain areas as taught in [0118] of Rosen.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Crubtree teaches wherein the selected resource demand is a resource demand received by the computer system ([0083-85] the schedule is overridden to reduce the load/resource demand and the server is used to lower the load and thus this is rescheduled which is received by multiple computers).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16 , Crubtree teaches wherein the instructions further cause the computer system to receive an upload of the resource demand requesting the transfer that is to occur prior to the projected overload condition ([0087] scheduled events of the transfer of load are performed prior to the overload condition), and wherein the instructions that cause the computer system to select the resource demand further include instructions that cause the computer system to select the uploaded resource demand requesting the transfer that is to occur prior to the projected overload condition ([0087] scheduled events of the transfer of load are performed prior to the overload condition).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Crubtree teaches identification of a system for resources as in [0026] where users and resources are mapped to the server using identifiers), but it does not explicitly state the selection of resource demand which grants transfer extension requests.
Rosen teaches a projected and estimated load as in [0119] and [0134] which estimate the load for an area to provide access to more resources as in [0175] and [0179] where load is accessed given the estimation.
Rosen teaches a transfer extension request to reschedule a transfer until after a projected event as in [0114] where a rescheduling avoids the peaks and valleys of the projections.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the detection of overload and shortfall conditions of Crubtree with the detection of these conditions of Rosen as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to problems in overloading and shorting of servers, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase network capacity during high load times or in certain areas as taught in [0118] of Rosen.
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Crubtree teaches identification of a system for resources as in [0026] where users and resources are mapped to the server using identifiers) where information is sent to multiple systems as in [0083-85] where the schedule is overridden to reduce the load/resource demand and the server is used to lower the load and thus this is rescheduled which uses multiple computers, thus teaching a second computer which is utilized and identified.
Crubtree also teaches demand prior to a projected overload as in [0083] where a server is configured to schedule a load at a point of interest, which is identified.
Crubtree does not explicitly state transfer requests.
Rosen teaches a projected and estimated load as in [0119] and [0134] which estimate the load for an area to provide access to more resources as in [0175] and [0179] where load is accessed given the estimation.
Rosen teaches a transfer extension request to reschedule a transfer until after a projected event as in [0114] where a rescheduling avoids the peaks and valleys of the projections.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the detection of overload and shortfall conditions of Crubtree with the detection of these conditions of Rosen as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to problems in overloading and shorting of servers, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase network capacity during high load times or in certain areas as taught in [0118] of Rosen.
Regarding Claim 9, Crubtree teaches wherein providing access to the resource includes initiating a transfer ([0052] and [0067] where there is a start of transfer such as electricity in [0067]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crubtree (U.S. Publication No. 2010/021,7642) in view of Rosen (U.S. Publication No. 2016/031,6388) in further view of Poor (U.S. Publication No. 2015/015,4879).
Regarding Claim 21, Although Crubtree teaches the projected demand is defined by a resource files,
Although Crubtree teaches to generate a rescheduling request to reschedule the resource demand until after the projected overload condition as in [0083-84] where the schedule is overridden to reduce the load/resource demand, it does not explicitly state this is a transfer extension request nor does it explicitly teach explicitly state a projected overload condition from a projected demand for a resource.
Rosen teaches a projected and estimated load as in [0119] and [0134] which estimate the load for an area to provide access to more resources as in [0175] and [0179] where load is accessed given the estimation.
Rosen teaches a transfer extension request to reschedule a transfer until after a projected event as in [0114] where a rescheduling avoids the peaks and valleys of the projections.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the detection of overload and shortfall conditions of Crubtree with the detection of these conditions of Rosen as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to problems in overloading and shorting of servers, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase network capacity during high load times or in certain areas as taught in [0118] of Rosen.
Neither Crubtree nor Rosen teaches OCR recognition of a file.
Poor teaches applying image recognition techniques including optical character recognition (OCR) to the resource demand file or the resource conditions file to extract information regarding scheduling ([0143] OCR is used in extracting information from documents in regards to [0141-142] scheduling of resources).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the detection of overload and shortfall conditions and requests of the combination of Crubtree and Rosen with the scheduling of Poor as they are all analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to problems in scheduling of resources, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would decrease the time and cost of going through requests and proposals as taught in [0010] of Poor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210075253 A1
FUJIURA; Hiroaki et al.
MONITORING CONTROL SYSTEM
US 20160316388 A1
Rosen; Sanae Leah Madeleine et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SCHEDULING TIME-SHIFTING TRAFFIC IN A MOBILE CELLULAR NETWORK
US 20160072287 A1
Jia; Jimmy et al.
COMFORT-DRIVEN OPTIMIZATION OF ELECTRIC GRID UTILIZATION
US 20150154879 A1
POOR; DAVID Deas Sinkler et al.
USE OF A RESOURCE ALLOCATION ENGINE IN PROCESSING STUDENT RESPONSES TO ASSESSMENT ITEMS
US 20100217642 A1
Crubtree; Jason et al.
System and method for single-action energy resource scheduling and participation in energy-related securities
US 20230316169 A1
Albero; George Anthony et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR OPTIMIZATION OF RESOURCE ROUTING IN A NETWORK BASED QUANTUM COMPUTING
US 20190021037 A1
Shaw; Venson et al.
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR COORDINATING WIRELESS RESOURCES IN A COMMUNICATION NETWORK
US 20140196051 A1
Subramanya; Ananth et al.
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT USING ENVIRONMENTS
US 20140079207 A1
Zhakov; Vyacheslav et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING DYNAMIC ELASTICITY OF CONTACT CENTER RESOURCES
US 20130060397 A1
Hawkins; David John
MANAGEMENT OF POWER DISTRIBUTION CONSTRAINTS
US 20120173477 A1
Coutts; Michael G. et al.
PREDICTIVE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
US 20110040598 A1
Brady; Jeffrey et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A PLANNER
US 20090271239 A1
Underdal; Olav M. et al.
TEST REQUIREMENT LIST FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTS
US 20090164533 A1
Hubbard; Edward A.
Method of Managing Workloads and Associated Distributed Processing System
US 20080033774 A1
Kimbrel; Tracy J. et al.
Dynamic Resource Allocation Using Projected Future Benefits
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 3/11/2026