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 . This Office Action is in reply to communication filed on 05/12/2025. Claimed priority is granted from PRO 63/280,001, with a priority filing date of 11/16/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/04/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the original application filed on 05/12/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Cancelled Claims
Claims 1-20 have been cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer.
Double Patenting
Nonstatutory double patenting rejection
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,113 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The present claims recite the same intent-based orchestration architecture using different terminology or obvious implementations of the patented resource-allocation, deployment, telemetry-monitoring, and corrective-resource-management functions. Claims 21-40 are the new claims presented in the amendment.
Claims Mapping
Current Application Claims
US 12,299,113 B2
Basis for Rejection
21, 28, 35
1, 6, 17
Patent claim 1 recites receiving an intent-based SLO, generating resource-allocation rules and a deployment plan, monitoring using real-time telemetry, and modifying the allocation rules and deployment plan. Claim 6 uses machine learning and claim 17 performs corrective workload migration to improve SLO compliance. The presently claimed actionable configuration, AI monitoring/prediction, and corrective action are not patentably
22, 29, 36
1
The additional bandwidth or throughput requirement is an SLO parameter within the intent-based SLO of patent claim 1 and does not patentably distinguish the claims.
23, 30, 37
1, 18-20
Patent claim 1 expressly monitors workload performance using real-time telemetry. Claims 18-20 further recite telemetry collection and workload monitoring. Monitoring a resource slice using telemetry data is not patentably distinct.
24, 31, 38
1, 17
Patent claim 1 provides telemetry-based modification of resource allocation and deployment and claim 17 provides corrective workload migration to improve SLO compliance. Performing an additional corrective action when the SLO remains unmet is an obvious continuation of the same feedback-control process.
25, 32, 39
1, 4, 7
Patent claim 1 deploys resources for a workload, claim 4 reserves for the workload, and claim 7 reconfigure hardware resources to service the workload. Creating a resource slice to serve the workload is not patentably distinct.
26, 33, 40
1, 17
Patent claim 1 modifies resource-allocation rules and the deployment -plan based on real-time telemetry. Dynamically updating an actionable configuration based on real-time factors is an obvious restatement of this feedback operation.
27, 34
7, 17
Patent claim 7 reconfigures hardware resources and claim 17 migrates workload portions between compute nodes to improve SLO compliance. Corrective reallocation of resources is not patently distinct from these claimed operations.
Explanation of rejections
Claims 21, 28, and 35
Claims 21, 28, and 35 recite the same basic orchestration process in different statutory forms: translating an intent-based request into a configuration, creating resources responsive to that configuration, creating resources responsive to configuration, monitoring compliance, predicting failure to satisfy a requirement, and taking corrective action.
Patent claim 1 already claims an intent-based orchestration feedback loop involving an SLO, resource-allocation rules, a deployment plan, real-time telemetry, and modification of the rules and plan. Patent claim 6 expressly applies machine learning to deployment planning and claim 17 corrective workload migration to improve SLO compliance.
Accordingly, the additional recitations of an actionable configuration, resource slice, AI prediction, and corrective action do not render claims 21, 28, and 35 patentably distinct.
Claims 22, 29, and 36
Claims 23, 29, and 36 require monitoring-based telemetry data.
Patent claim 1 expressly requires monitoring workload performance using real-time telemetry, and patent claims 18-20 further define telemetry collection and monitoring.
Therefore, claims 23, 30, and 37 are not patentably distinct.
Claims 24, 31, and 38
Claims 24, 31, and 38 recite performing a first corrective action, determining that the latency requirement is not met, and performing a second corrective action.
Patent claim 1 already provides an iterative telemetry-based feedback process in which resource allocation and deployment are modified in response to performance, while patent claim 17 performs allocation and deployment are modified in response to performance, while patent claim 17 performs corrective workload migration to improve SLO compliance.
Repeating the corrective process when the SLO remains unsatisfied is an obvious application of the patented feedback loop. Thus, claims 24, 31, and 38 are not patentably distinct.
Claims 25, 32, and 39.
Claims 25, 32, and 39 require creation of a resource slice to serve a workload.
Patent claims 1, 4, and 7 already claim deployment, reservation, and reconfiguration of resources to service a workload.
Accordingly, characterizing the allocated resources as a “resource slice” does not establish a patentable distinction.
Claims 26, 33, and 40
Claims 26, 33, and 40 require dynamically updating the actionable configuration based on real-time factors.
Patent claim 1 expressly modifies resource-allocation rules and the deployment plan based on real-time telemetry. Thus, dynamically updating the actionable configuration based on real-time factors represents the same feedback-control function and is not patentably distinct.
Claims 27 and 34
Claims 27 and 34 require performing corrective action by reallocating resources.
Patent claim 7 claims reconfiguration of hardware resources, and patent claim 17 claims migration of workload execution to another compute node to improve compliance with the SLO.
Accordingly, corrective resource reallocation is an obvious variation of the resource reconfiguration and migration already claimed.
Claims 21-30 are rejected for non-statutory double-patenting over claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 12,299,113 B2 because the present claims do not define a patentably distinct invention. The differences between the claims of the invention and the patent claims amount to changes in terminology, claim format, or obvious implementations of the same claimed orchestration functions and therefore do not confer patentable distinctness. By this rationale, claim 21-40 are rejected.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jude Jean-Gilles whose telephone number is 571-272-3914. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, from 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached on 571-272-4170. 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.
/JUDE JEAN GILLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
September 19, 2026
