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 .
The amendments were received on 6/4/2025. Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, 18-20, and 24-26 are pending where claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, 18-20, and 24-26 were previously presented; and claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17, and 21-23 were cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/4/2025 has been entered.
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, 4-8, 11-15, 18-20, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A – Prong One
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite limitations including:
A method of automatically curating data…
combining the first and second algorithms with the logical operator into a combined algorithm (mental process step of taking two conditions, i.e. algorithms and combining them with a logical operator such as an OR operator or AND operator);
executing the combined algorithm based on the first algorithm; identify one or more files based on the second algorithm and the logical operator (mental process step of observation/selection/judgment such as selecting a location that the user wants to do something at which can be based on attributes/features of the algorithm/matching criteria with the traits of the device/location being evaluated (first algorithm) as well as including mental process step of evaluation such as applying conditions to items at the location and mentally determining which ones meet the conditions, which is similar to a user mentally deciding which file cabinet and drawer(s) to search (first algorithm) and what files/folders to remove from those drawer(s)).
As noted above, the above identified claim limitations recite mental process steps including observations, evaluations, and judgments that a person could practically do in their mind when evaluating what content is no longer needed based on pattern matching (i.e. executing the algorithm). These steps are similar to the thinking steps a person would do when reviewing their own book or movie collection and determining/identifying books/movies they no longer want.
Step 2A – Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
a method of automatically curating data within a computing system (indicating method on a computing system is merely applying judicial exception on computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), the method comprising performing with one or more processors (indicating method on a computing system is merely applying judicial exception on computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
displaying, in a graphical user interface, a menu comprising a plurality of algorithms (recites mere instructions to apply an exception since merely invokes computer as a tool (i.e. GUI), MPEP 2106.05(f));
receiving, from a user via the graphical user interface, a selection of a first algorithm and a second algorithm from the plurality of algorithms (as discussed above, the selection of the algorithms relate to mental process steps where the usage of the visual interface to receive the selection relates to linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (i.e. GUI) to interact with a computer to receive user decisions (see MPEP 2106.05(h)),
wherein the first algorithm identifies a storage system, and a wherein the second algorithm identifies an amount of time (recites field of use limitations describing the meaning or purpose of the data, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
receiving a selection of a logical operator via a button in the graphical user interface (as discussed above, the selection of a particular operator to combine two concepts/rules/expressions relate to mental process steps where the usage of the visual interface to receive the selection relates to linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (i.e. GUI) to interact with a computer to receive user decisions (see MPEP 2106.05(h));
storing the combined algorithm in memory (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of storing information in memory and adds no meaningful limitation beyond that of the abstract idea as discussed above (see MPEP 2106.05(g));
…
and automatically delete the identified one or more files from the computing system based on the combined algorithm (recites insignificant post-solution activity of storing information on a memory (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and additional listing of examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)).
As seen from the above discussion, the additional elements relate to generic usage of a computer as a tool for input of commands for a computer to perform the judicial exception as well as a generic computer memory function of deleting data.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
a method of automatically curating data within a computing system (indicating method on a computing system is merely applying judicial exception on computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), the method comprising performing with one or more processors (indicating method on a computing system is merely applying judicial exception on computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
displaying, in a graphical user interface, a menu comprising a plurality of algorithms (recites mere instructions to apply an exception since merely invokes computer as a tool (i.e. GUI), MPEP 2106.05(f));
receiving, from a user via the graphical user interface, a selection of a first algorithm and a second algorithm from the plurality of algorithms (as discussed above, the selection of the algorithms relate to mental process steps where the usage of the visual interface to receive the selection relates to linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (i.e. GUI) to interact with a computer to receive user decisions (see MPEP 2106.05(h)),
wherein the first algorithm identifies a storage system, and a wherein the second algorithm identifies an amount of time (recites field of use limitations describing the meaning or purpose of the data, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
receiving a selection of a logical operator via a button in the graphical user interface (as discussed above, the selection of a particular operator to combine two concepts/rules/expressions relate to mental process steps where the usage of the visual interface to receive the selection relates to linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (i.e. GUI) to interact with a computer to receive user decisions (see MPEP 2106.05(h));
storing the combined algorithm in memory (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing information in memory and adds no meaningful limitation beyond that of the abstract idea as discussed above (see MPEP 2106.05(d));
…
and automatically delete the identified one or more files from the computing system based on the combined algorithm (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing or deleting information from memory, see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Seales [US 2014/0280323 A1], paragraph [0056] and Bharwani et al [US 3,670,310] that teaches at column 15, lines 17-27 the usage of a delete flag to indicate that items/files are deleted).
As seen from the above discussion, the additional elements relate to generic usage of a computer as a tool for input of commands for a computer to perform the judicial exception as well as well-understood, routine, and conventional computer memory functionality of deleting data.
With regard to claim 4, this claim recites that the second algorithm identifies a minimum line length which recites the above identified abstract idea and particularly identifies the criteria that is being used for comparisons and adds no meaningful limitations beyond that of the abstract idea.
With regard to claim 5, this claim recites wherein identifying one or more files based on the second algorithm comprises identifying an uninstalled service which recites field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) by indicating particular computer terminology that is used as the criteria for matching and adds no meaningful limitation beyond the abstract idea as discussed above.
With regard to claim 6, this claim recites that executing the combined algorithm comprises determining an amount of time elapsed since the service was uninstalled which recites the above identified abstract idea including mental process steps of determining/calculating an amount of time.
With regard to claim 7, this claim recites identifying files associated with the uninstalled service which recites the above identified abstract idea.
With regard to claim 24, this claim recites wherein receiving the selection of the first algorithm and the second algorithm comprises the first algorithm and the second algorithm being dragged and dropped in the graphical user interface which recites technological environment associated with graphical user interfaces and how to interact with objects on the interface (e.g. holding down left mouse button to drag an object around on a screen, i.e. drag-and-drop; see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and adds no meaningful limitation beyond that of the abstract idea.
With regard to claims 8, 11-14, 22, and 25 these claims are substantially similar to claims 1, 3-7, and 21, and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
With regard to claims 15, 18-20, 23, and 26 these claims are substantially similar to claims 1, 4-6, and 21 and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 8, 15, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaath et al [US 2006/0010150 A1] in view of Dettinger et al [US 2006/0129945 A1], Mamidi et al [US 2011/0106863 A1], and Aman et al [US 8,271,520].
With regard to claim 1, Shaath teaches a method of automatically curating data within a computing system, the method comprising performing with one or more processors: not processed); e.g. per paragraph [0044], first algorithm to identify files in MO One [storage system] that have been accessed more than 5 times and second algorithm to find files that were accessed within 30 days with a logical AND combining the two algorithms since both conditions need to be true for that expression/policy).
Shaath teaches policies and algorithms running but do not appear to explicitly teach:
displaying, in a graphical user interface, a menu comprising a plurality of algorithms;
receiving, from a user via the graphical user interface, a selection of a first algorithm and a second algorithm from the plurality of algorithms;
receiving a selection of a logical operator via a button in the graphical user interface;
combining the first and second algorithms with the logical operator into a combined algorithm;
storing the combined algorithm in memory;
and executing the combined algorithm by using the one or more processors to: locate a storage system within the computing system based on the first algorithm; identify one or more files based on the second algorithm and the logical operator;
and automatically delete the identified one or more files from the computing system based on the combined algorithm.
Dettinger teaches displaying, in a graphical user interface, a menu comprising a plurality of algorithms; receiving, from a user via the graphical user interface, a selection of a first algorithm and a second algorithm from the plurality of algorithms; receiving a selection of a logical operator via a button in the graphical user interface; combining the first and second algorithms with the logical operator into a combined algorithm (see Figures 8-12 and paragraphs [0046] and [0044]; the system lists multiple algorithms or expressions can allows users to select and drag/drop them to create a combined expression/algorithm).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the policy definition process of Shaath by allowing a graphical interface for designated/administrator users to be able to modify or create/set rules/policies as taught by Dettinger in order to allow the administrators to further customize the rules/policies based on a combination of simpler rules/algorithms thus creating more complex policies that can help the administrators handle the management of the data automatically instead of having to rely on simple one-size-fits all policies that may be provided by default thus helping to customize/define rules that can be applicable to handle any situation the business or users of the storage system need while providing drag and drop functionality to reduce excessive number of pointer clicks to accomplish the desired task(s).
Shaath in view of Dettinger do not appear to explicitly teach:
storing the combined algorithm in memory;
executing the combined algorithm by using the one or more processors to: locate a storage system within the computing system based on the first algorithm; identify one or more files based on the second algorithm and the logical operator;
and automatically delete the identified one or more files from the computing system based on the combined algorithm.
Mamidi teaches executing the
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the policies of Shaath in view of Dettinger by including means to schedule particular policies or have an administrator run a policy as taught by Mamidi in order to allow the administrators define when and how often they would like particular policies to be executed/evaluated by the system to find matching files as well as allow administrators run the algorithms/policies when they deem it necessary too thus giving the administrators greater control and flexibility over their file system.
Shaath in view of Dettinger and Mamidi teach executing the combined algorithm by using the one or more processors to: locate a storage system within the computing system based on the first algorithm; identify one or more files based on the second algorithm and the logical operator; and automatically delete the identified one or more files from the computing system based on the combined algorithm (see Mamidi, paragraph [0084]; the algorithm/policy can be executed/run; see Dettinger, Figures 8-12 and paragraphs [0046] and [0044]; Shaath, paragraphs [0038]-[0046]; the system can scan the storage system and identify files that meet the combined algorithm criteria and delete those files; e.g. per Shaath, paragraph [0044], first algorithm to identify files in MO One [storage system] that have been accessed more than 5 times and second algorithm to find files that were accessed within 30 days with a logical AND combining the two algorithms since both conditions need to be true for that expression/policy).
Shaath in view of Dettinger and Mamidi teach the usage of rules but do not appear to explicitly teach storing the combined algorithm in memory.
Aman teaches storing the combined algorithm in memory (see col 10, lines 5-10; col 25, lines 1-13; the system is able to create expressions/rules and be able to save them for later use).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the file management and policy definition system of Shaath in view of Dettinger and Mamidi by incorporating a rule editor with interface elements to save the rules and combined rules as taught by Aman in order to all the system to be able to create new rules and be able to store those rules for later use thereby saving users of the system time and effort by not having to always define the particular rules/expressions that they want to use that are not predefined by the system as well as save them time from always having to combine the same rules together to form their longer combined rules/algorithms anytime the user wants to use those rules/algorithms.
With regard to claims 8 and 15, these claims are substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
With regard to claim 24, Shaath in view of Dettinger, Mamidi, and Aman teach wherein receiving the selection of the first algorithm and the second algorithm comprises the first algorithm and the second algorithm being dragged and dropped in the graphical user interface (see Dettinger, Figures 8-12 and paragraphs [0046] and [0044]; the system allows the user input via the graphical user interface to include drag and drop functionality to specify what the user wants to combine together using some logical operator).
With regard to claims 25 and 26, these claims are substantially similar to claim 24 and is rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaath et al [US 2006/0010150 A1] in view of Dettinger et al [US 2006/0129945 A1], Mamidi et al [US 2011/0106863 A1], and Aman et al [US 8,271,520] in further view of Howland et al [US 20140025683 A1].
With regard to claim 4, Shaath in view of Dettinger, Mamidi, and Aman teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Shaath in view of Dettinger, Mamidi, and Aman teach rules with qualifications/criteria based on file size (see Mamidi, paragraph [0096]; see Shaath, paragraphs [0131] and [0138]) but do not appear to explicitly teach wherein the second algorithm identifies a minimum line length.
Howland identifies a file size based on line length (see paragraphs [0017] and [0018]; the line length or number of lines in the text file relates to the file size).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the policy definition process of Shaath in view of Dettinger, Mamidi, and Aman by including means to utilize the number of lines or line length of a file to act as file size as taught by Howland in order to allow the administrators to further customize the rules/policies based on minimum file sizes that are based on number of lines in a file (line length) so that the system can be customized to handle and manage the data as wanted by the administrators of the storage system including removing small files to help free up storage space.
Shaath in view of Dettinger, Mamidi, and Aman in further view of Howland teach wherein the second algorithm identifies a minimum line length (see Mamidi, paragraph [0096]; see Shaath, paragraphs [0131] and [0138]; see Howland, paragraphs [0017] and [0018]; the line length or number of lines in the text file relates to the file size and policies can be set based on the minimum file size for how to handle those files).
With regard to claims 11 and 18, these claims are substantially similar to claim 3 and is rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Claims 5-7, 12-14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaath et al [US 2006/0010150 A1] in view of Dettinger et al [US 2006/0129945 A1], Mamidi et al [US 2011/0106863 A1], and Aman et al [US 8,271,520] in further view of Chen et al [US 2014/0365451 A1].
With regard to claim 5, Shaath in view of Dettinger, Mamidi, and Aman teach all the claim limitations of claims 1 as discussed above.
Shaath in view of Dettinger, Mamidi, and Aman do not appear to explicitly teach wherein identifying one or more files based on the second algorithm comprises identifying an uninstalled service.
Chen teaches identifying an uninstalled service (see paragraphs [0049]-[0052]; [0055]; and [0085]; the system can identify applications that have since been uninstalled and their residual or junk files still present in the system).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the file management and policy definition system of Shaath in view of Dettinger, Mamidi, and Aman by including means to provide criteria to search for files associated with uninstalled services as taught by Chen in order to help expand and improve storage space when applications/services are uninstalled by having means to be able to have policies/rules that can automatically search for those junk/residual files associated with the uninstalled service/program/application and remove them without necessarily having to wait for a generic age policy to eventually identify the files thereby freeing up space sooner in the system for the user to use.
Shaath in view of Dettinger, Mamidi, and Aman in further view of Chen teach wherein identifying one or more files based on the second algorithm comprises identifying an uninstalled service (see Chen, paragraphs [0049]-[0052]; [0055]; and [0085]; see Shaath, paragraph [0032]; the system can utilize a plurality of policies to manage the files and data including policy based on whether the data belongs to an uninstalled service/program).
With regard to claim 6, Shaath in view of Dettinger, Mamidi, and Aman in further view of Chen teach wherein executing the combined algorithm comprises determining an amount of time elapsed since the uninstalled service was uninstalled (see Chen, paragraphs [0049]-[0052]; [0055]; and [0085]; see Shaath, paragraphs [0102]-[0104]; the system can utilize expiration dates that can be based on when the file is no longer required including based on the application that required the file being uninstalled).
With regard to claim 7, Shaath in view of Dettinger, Mamidi, and Aman in further view of Chen teach wherein identifying one or more files comprises identifying files associated with the uninstalled service (see Chen, paragraphs [0049]-[0052]; [0055]; and [0085]; the files associated with the service are identified and deleted).
With regard to claims 12-14, these claims are substantially similar to claims 5-7 and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
With regard to claims 19 and 20, these claims are substantially similar to claims 5 and 6 and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments argues (see the third from last paragraph on page 7 through the second to last paragraph on page 9) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the respective 35 USC 101 rejections should be withdrawn since the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, applicant argues that (a) the claims present a practical application in which a menu comprises a plurality of algorithms as displayed in a graphical user interface including a button for a logical operator which results in an improved user interface; and (b) the claims recite automatically delete the identified files integrates the claims into a practical application for a variety of reasons (discussed further below) since the automatically delete limitation is not storing/retrieving information in memory and not claimed in a merely generic manner; and also the deleting provides the curation referred to in the preamble of the claims.
With regards to argument (a), the applicant argues that the combination of having a menu listing various algorithms and then being able to select those algorithms provides a claimed combination that presents a practical application. However, merely reciting the usage of a graphical user interface with particular information (i.e. algorithms/expressions) at most merely invokes computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea; similarly, high-level discussion of interactions with a GUI to perform selections likewise relate to merely using a computer as a tool with a focus on the technological environment of graphical user interfaces (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With regard to argument (b), the applicant indicates that deleting files from a computer system is not storing or retrieving information (see third to last paragraph on page 8) and thus the 35 USC 101 should be withdrawn. The Examiner notes that “deleting” is a broad term with respect to computers and can cover simple actions such as marking the data as deleted so that the user and the computer system don’t see the data/file. The Examiner provided evidence illustrating how “deleting” can mean merely writing/storing a value in a delete flag for data to indicate to the computer to consider the file as deleted. Absent any specific details, the applicant’s generic usage of “deleting” covers this well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of deleting data. The Examiner has also included Bharwani et al [US 3,670,310] that teaches at column 15, lines 17-27 the usage of a delete flag to indicate that items/files are deleted. As stated in the previous Office Action dated 11/6/2024, the Examiner invites the applicant to incorporate additional details about what is involved with their claimed “delete” since those details would warrant further consideration. As such, the mere recitation of generic computer functionality at a high-level of generality (deleting) is not persuasive.
The applicant secondly argues that deleting files based on a combined algorithm is not a merely generic function as can be seen since none of the 35 USC 103 rejection references teach, or suggest, the combined algorithm as claimed (see second to last paragraph on page 8). As illustrated in the 35 USC 103 rejections above, Shaath illustrates a combined algorithm that involves multiple criteria to make a determination (see paragraph [0044], first algorithm to identify files in MO One [storage system] that have been accessed more than 5 times and second algorithm to find files that were accessed within 30 days with a logical AND combining the two algorithms since both conditions need to be true for that expression/policy). As illustrated above, the claims merely recite a function with no explicit details on how that function is performed and thus covers generic and standard computer functionality for deleting data, as explained above. Thus, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The applicant thirdly argues that the deletion step provides the curation step as recited in the “automatically curating data” in the preamble; without deleting the files, the claim would not curate and the Office Action acknowledges that deleting files is not an abstract idea therefore the 35 USC 101 rejection should be withdrawn (see the last paragraph on page 8); however, the Examiner notes that “curating” data does not mean deleting but rather selecting; hence, the claim limitations that focus on the actual creation of selection criteria and selecting files is the abstract idea. Thus, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The applicant fourthly argues that the claims improves functionality of the computer system by reclaiming storage space since a storage system with more available storage space can perform with increased functionality as compared to the same computing system with less available storage space (see the second paragraph on page 9). Although less storage space can be advantageous, the inventive concept needs to be recited in the claimed function (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Merely generically reciting deleting and letting the computer perform the generic high-level function of data/file deletion with no other details does not rise to an improvement in the functionality of a computer but instead invokes computers as a tool for the abstract idea. As such, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments argues (see last paragraph on page 9 through the second to last paragraph on page 11) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues (a) that deleting files from a computer system is not a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since MPEP 2106.05(d) does not mention “deleting” and US 2014/0280323 does not describe the state of the art nor what is well-known and common use in relevant industry [last paragraph on page 9 and first paragraph on page 11]; and (b) that Example 37 shows a claim being eligible with regards to the use of a GUI and with subject matter determined to be integrated into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regard to argument (a) that MPEP 2106.05(d) does not mention “deleting”; the Examiner notes that, although different terms are used, the requirements for patentability is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identify of terminology is not required. As shown above in the 35 USC 101 rejections, computer functionality with “deleting” can involve storing information that marks data/files to as deleted. Additionally, overwriting data (i.e. storing information in the data location of other previously stored data) would also constitute deleting since that previously stored data is now gone and replaced with whatever new data is being written/stored. Thus, as can be seen, the general functionality and concept of deleting data in a memory is discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d). Additionally, with regard to the automatically delete limitation, the Shaath reference provides various examples in paragraphs 37-48 including criteria for determining when to delete a file and also to make certain commands/functions occur based on a combined algorithm of different criteria together (accessed more than 5 times and within 30 days).
With regard to argument (b) about Example 37, the Examiner notes that the underlying details between Example 37 and the present claims are fundamentally different and the mere recitation of a GUI was not the reason that the claims were found to be eligible under 35 USC 101. It is unclear how icon placement on a GUI based on icon usage over a period of time relates to deletion criteria to find files to delete. As such, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments (see the last paragraph on page 11 through the last paragraph on page 14) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the cited prior art references do not teach all the claim limitations including the receiving, via the GUI, a selection of a first and second algorithm limitation with the first algorithm identifying a storage system and the second algorithm identifying an amount of time. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As illustrated in the 35 USC 103 rejections, the Shaath reference makes use of algorithms including showing the identification of a storage system and the usage of some time period (see Shaath, paragraphs [0036]-[0046]); however, although algorithms are created and used, Shaath did not appear to explicitly teach how the algorithms were created. As shown in the 35 USC 103 rejections above, Shaath is modified with the teachings of at least Dettinger to illustrate the usage of a graphical user interface to receive inputs to create rules/policies/combined algorithms. Therefore, as can be seen, the combination teaches the claim limitations as recited.
Examiner Comments
The Examiner identified additional details regarding Figure 4B and paragraphs [0078]-[0079] and [0088] from the originally filed specification that could help further elaborate on the graphical user interface and it’s respective usage thereof for defining a new combined algorithm based on previously stored combined algorithms as well as other functionality of the user interface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC S SOMERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3567. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 EST.
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, Ann Lo can be reached on 5712729767. 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.
/MARC S SOMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 8/12/2025