DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received on February 28, 2025 has been acknowledged. Claims 1-20 have been amended and entered. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 31, 2025 and December 10, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 recite subject matter allowable over the prior art of record.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) the steps of the method, as drafted, provide a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interactions such as advertising or marketing or sales activities or a business relationship between a tenant and a cloud service provider by describing configuring cloud resources and converting a pricing structure (as claimed), for example, converting a cloud resource from pay per use to spot pricing.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers advertising or
marketing or sales activities or a business relationship, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of
Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not
recite an additional element. As such, there is nothing recited that can be considered a practical
application or significantly more than the judicial exception.
To the extent that an interface, i.e. configuration interface and conversion interface may be interpreted as an additional element (if interpreted as a display on a monitor or screen), then this additional element would also fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. If the creating and receiving steps are interpreted to include a computer monitor or screen, then this is recited at a high‐level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic function of displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, these 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. Similarly, a
computer monitor or screen would not be 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 interfaces (such as a computer screen) amounts to no more than
mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim is patent ineligible.
A similar analysis should have been applied to claims 9 and 17 which recites essentially the same
abstract idea as in claim 1. Claim 9 includes the additional elements of a computing device cluster, at least one computing device, memory to store instructions and one or more processors coupled to memory. However, these computers (and computer elements) are recited at a high‐level of generality (i.e., as a generic processors performing a generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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.
Claim 17, with the adaptation of continuing keeping providing, based on the first billing, the cloud resource for the tenant when the tenant does not actively release the cloud resource and idle resources are insufficient. However, continuing providing the cloud resource for the tenant when the tenant does not actively release the cloud resource and idle resources are insufficient is also considered to be part of the abstract idea as part of a business decision of what the cloud provider will bill the tenant.
The dependent claims also are patent ineligible. For example, claims 2, 10 and 18 include the step of receiving, from the tenant, via the cloud resource type conversion interface, and after converting the type attribute, a second cloud resource type conversion policy indicating to convert the type attribute from indicating the stable cloud resource to indicating the unstable cloud resource;
converting, based on the second cloud resource type conversion policy, the type attribute from indicating the stable cloud resource to indicating the unstable cloud resource;
performing second billing on use of the cloud resource in a preferential manner based on the type attribute indicating the unstable cloud resource; and,
stopping providing, based on the second billing, the cloud resource for the tenant when the tenant does not actively release the cloud resource and the idle resources are insufficient, which further describes the business relationship between the tenant and cloud provider.
Claims 3‐8, 11-16 and 19‐20 further describe the abstract idea with limitations directed to counting attribute type conversion times, forbidding a next conversion type or charging a tenant, calculating a conversion ratio, forbidding a conversion when a request exceeds a threshold, performing a second billing in a non-preferential manner, continue charging a tenant that does not release the cloud resource and defining an unstable and stable resources.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Morgan, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0226808 discusses systems and methods for metering cloud resource consumption using multiple hierarchical subscription periods. A set of aggregate usage history data can record consumption of processor, software, or other resources subscribed to by a set of users, in one cloud or across multiple clouds. An entitlement engine can analyze the usage history data to identify a subscription margin for the subscribed resources, reflecting collective under-consumption of resources by the set of users on a collective basis, over different and/or dynamically updated subscription periods. In aspects, the entitlement engine or other logic can generate multiple hierarchical time periods or layers over which resource consumption can be tracked. For instance, processor usage can be tracked over blocks of two hours or other intervals, but can also be tracked over 24 hour intervals for which additional subscription costs, terms, or factors may apply. In aspects, the consumption of not just one but multiple resources can be tracked over the hierarchical time periods, with cost adjustments being keyed to joint consumption levels of those resources, and/or over different time periods or layers. Abstract
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHFORD S HAYLES whose telephone number is (571)270-5106. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM with Flex.
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 Obeid can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/ASHFORD S HAYLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights