DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an amendment filed on July 21, 2026 for the application of Hwang et al., for a “Machine learning classification of object store workloads” filed on March 4, 2022. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-12 and 15-20 are pending in the application.
Claims 13-14 have been previously cancelled and claims 1, 8, and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-12 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Specification
In view of the amendments to the title filed on July 21, 2026, the previous objections to the title have been withdrawn.
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 1-12 and 15-20 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) mental processes-concepts performed in human mind.
Claim 1 recites abstract ideas:
an access component that accesses a resource utilization descriptor representing how a workload of a data store consumes resources of the data store, wherein the resource utilization descriptor indicates at least one of a computer processing unit utilization level of the data store that is caused by the workload, a temporary computer memory utilization level of the data store that is caused by the workload, a permanent computer memory utilization level of the data store that is caused by the workload, or a network bandwidth utilization level of the data store that is caused by the workload, wherein the resource utilization descriptor includes metrics pertaining to counter manager objects, platform characteristics associated with the data store and environmental metrics corresponds to data analysis steps recited at high level of generality such that they could be performed in the human mind, which are mental processes. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations in light of the specification encompasses analyzing data values/trends/patterns ([0062]).
an execution component that performs one or more electronic actions based on the classification label, wherein the one or more electronic actions include generating and electronically transmitting a recommendation that indicates that the workload could be successfully transplanted to a particular data store that is different than the data store and suggests that such transplantation be carried out when the classification label indicates that the workload represented by the resource utilization descriptor can be successfully transplanted to the particular data store and wherein the one or more electronic actions include generating and electronically transmitting a different recommendation that indicates that the workload could not be successfully transplanted to the particular data store and suggests that such transplantation not be carried out when the classification label indicates that the workload represented by the resource utilization descriptor cannot be successfully transplanted to the particular data store corresponds to data analysis steps recited at high level of generality such that they could be performed in the human mind, which are mental processes. Analyzing resource utilization data to infer possibility of a successful workload transfer and making a recommendation/suggestion as to whether the workload transfer would/would not be successful is a mental process. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations in light of the specification encompasses recommendations of a suggestion ([0096] and [0119]-[0120]).
Examiner further notes that various sections of the applicant’s specifications disclose generating recommendations of a suggestion of a remedial action (see paragraphs [0096] and [0119]-[0120]). Making a suggestion is a mental process.
Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
at least one processor that executes computer-executable components stored in a non-transitory computer-readable memory amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer, which is mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and in this case generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
an access component that electronically accesses as claimed under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is equal to electronically receiving data, which is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “electronically accesses” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and in this case generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, with regards to electronically accessing or receiving, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC V. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., V. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. V. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. V. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
a model component that generates, via execution of a machine learning model, a classification label based on the resource utilization descriptor, wherein the model component feeds the resource utilization descriptor as input to the machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model produces as output the classification label, and wherein the classification label characterizes the workload of the data store amounts to using a machine learning model is directed to generic computer components recited in this limitation merely add the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
As for the limitations recited in claims 2-7, when considering each of the claims as a whole these additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. The additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional elements do not implement a judicial exception with, or use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. The additional element do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Claims 8-12 and 15 recite a computer-implemented method of claims 1-7’s system. Therefore, claims 8-12 and 15 are rejected on the same grounds as claims 1-7.
Claim 8 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
a device operatively coupled to one or more processors amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer, which is mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and in this case generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
electronically accessing as claimed under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is equal to electronically receiving data, which is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “electronically accessing” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and in this case generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, with regards to electronically accessing or receiving, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC V. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., V. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. V. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. V. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
generating via execution of a machine learning model on the resource utilization descriptor, a classification label that describes a characteristic of the workload of the data store, wherein the machine learning model receives as input the resource utilization descriptor, and wherein the machine learning model computes as output the classification label amounts to using a machine learning model is directed to generic computer components recited in this limitation merely add the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
Claims 11-12 recite the limitations of a resource of the data store that is being underutilized/overutilized and transmitting a suggestion that utilization of such resource be increased/decreased. These limitations are directed to adding/removing/balancing resources, which has been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional functions (MPEP 2106.05(d)). The following prior arts are examples of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of adding/removing/balancing resources:
Adamson et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20190129779) discloses various remedies for resource overutilization and resource underutilization ([0039]-[0042]).
Kaminski et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20150365309) discloses load balancing for resource overutilization and resource underutilization ([0109]).
Claims 16-20 recite a computer program product of claims 1-7’s system. Therefore, claims 8-16 are rejected on the same grounds as claims 1-7.
Claim 16 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
A computer program product for facilitating machine learning classification of workloads of a data store so as to support provision of tailored warnings or recommendations regarding the data store, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable memory having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer, which is mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and in this case generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
execute a machine learning model on the resource utilization descriptor, thereby yielding a classification label that qualifies the workload, wherein the machine learning model takes as input the resource utilization descriptor and calculates as output the classification label amounts to using a machine learning model is directed to generic computer components recited in this limitation merely add the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
For the reasons stated above, claims 1-12 and 15-20 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed on July 21, 2026 necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection in this Office action. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, as set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
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 Elmira Mehrmanesh whose telephone number is (571)272-5531. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bryce Bonzo, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3655. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Elmira Mehrmanesh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
