DETAILED 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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 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 for 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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/813,277 (reference application) in view of Moorthy US Pub 2024/0394100 (hereafter Moorthy). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both steps comprise substantially the same elements, and the instant application is a continuation of the copending Application No. 18/813,277. For example, functions performed by the steps of claim 1 of the instant application are the same and obvious as the steps of claim 1 of the copending Application No. 18/813,277. The steps of receiving, inputting and provisioning step of the instant application are similar to the steps of receiving, inputting and generating step of the copending Application No. 18/813,277. The difference is the claims in the copending Application No. 18/813,277 having limitation “generating, by the processor, an input vector based on the query” which further defines the claimed limitations of the instant application for further clarification. Another difference is the claims in the instant application having the limitations of “capacity planning system that includes an autonomous agent comprising a self-contained software program configured to perform provisioning tasks autonomously within a multitenant computing platform”, “the automatically provisioning comprising allocating, without manual intervention, the processing resource allocation, the storage resource allocation, or the networking resource allocation to at least one of: a private instance of the multitenant computing platform associated with the potential tenant; or a shared instance of the multitenant computing platform” which further defines the function of the receiving a query, inputting into a predictive model and generating changes to resources of the copending Application No. 18/813,277. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art at the time of invention to incorporate the teaching of Moorthy into the teaching of the copending Application No. 18/813,277 to have an autonomous AI agent to perform dynamic allocation of resources to application service based on the received request to provision a container, and based on the resource consumption of the service. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would implement the feature of Moorthy to have an autonomous AI agent detecting resource consumption amount of the service, and increase or reduce resource allocation based on the resource consumption threshold value. Thus, an optimal resource allocation is provided to the services dynamically and automatically.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation “autonomous agent comprising a self-contained software program configured to perform provisioning tasks autonomously within a multitenant computing platform” is recited in claims 1, 8 and 15, which claims 2, 9 and 16 depend on respectively. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under Double patenting and 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 4th paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moorthy US Pub 2024/0394100 teaches dynamic allocation of resources to application micro-services is performed by receiving, by an agent executed on a server of a cloud computing environment, a request to provision a container for a micro-service of an application, provisioning, by the agent, the container for the micro-service on the worker server with an allocated resource amount, detecting, by the agent, a resource consumption amount of the micro-service, increasing, by the agent in response to the resource consumption amount exceeding an upper resource consumption threshold value, the allocated resource amount by a resource increment, and reducing, by the agent in response to the resource consumption amount exceeding a lower resource consumption threshold value, the allocated resource amount by the resource increment.
Kumar et a. US Pub 2025/0021441 teaches resource allocation among data assets being processed is analyzed and reallocated (tuned) as necessary to ensure that critical data assets are provided with the necessary resources for their protection operations. Embodiments use a machine learning (ML) model that would identify the resource consumption for the all the running policies to smartly allocate the optimal number of resources based on the criticality of the data object and their policies.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMMY EUNHYE LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7773. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thur 9PM-4PM.
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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571)272-4169. 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.
/TAMMY E LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights