DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/17/2026 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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One
The claims are directed to a method (claims 1 - 7), a system with structural components (claims 8 - 14), and a non-transitory computer readable medium (claims 15 - 20). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
As to claims 1,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
executing one or more instance generations associated with an evolutionary algorithm;
identifying data corresponding to inputs and outputs associated with executing the one or more instance generations,
determining one or more survivor generations from among the one or more instance generations based on analyzing a fitness associated with the one or more instance generations;
identifying tagged data corresponding to inputs and outputs associated with the one or more survivor generations;
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a human can mentally try several possible solutions to a problem, observing the results of each attempt, comparing which solution worked best, keeping the best-performing options, and labeling those successful attempts for future use.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein for each of the one or more instance generations, the data is tagged in storage to associate the inputs and outputs with a respective instance generation;
instructing a storage controller to prioritize storage of the tagged data corresponding to the inputs and outputs associated with the one or more survivor generations by performing at least one action selected from the group consisting of:.
modifying cache allocation of the tagged data such that the tagged data is retained in a cache during execution of a subsequent generation of the evolutionary algorithm, and
modifying memory tier placement of the tagged data such that the tagged data is promoted to a higher memory tier during execution of the subsequent generation of the evolutionary
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The one or processors, storage, and storage controller are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of instances generations amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As such, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein for each of the one or more instance generations, the data is tagged in storage to associate the inputs and outputs with a respective instance generation;
instructing a storage controller to prioritize storage of the tagged data corresponding to the inputs and outputs associated with the one or more survivor generations by performing at least one action selected from the group consisting of:.
modifying cache allocation of the tagged data such that the tagged data is retained in a cache during execution of a subsequent generation of the evolutionary algorithm, and
modifying memory tier placement of the tagged data such that the tagged data is promoted to a higher memory tier during execution of the subsequent generation of the evolutionary
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The one or processors, storage, and storage controller are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of instances generations amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As such, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 2,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
iterating through survivor generations until a fitness threshold associated with the evolutionary algorithm is reached.
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a human can iteratively run an evolutionary algorithm until a certain threshold is reached.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 3,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 1, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein prioritizing the storage of the tagged data corresponding to the inputs and outputs associated with the one or more survivor generations comprises releasing data corresponding to inputs and outputs associated with non-surviving instance generations.
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein prioritizing the storage of the tagged data corresponding to the inputs and outputs associated with the one or more survivor generations comprises releasing data corresponding to inputs and outputs associated with non-surviving instance generations.
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 4,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 1, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein prioritizing the storage of the tagged data corresponding to the inputs and outputs associated with the one or more survivor generations comprises storing the tagged data in a higher memory tier than data corresponding to non-surviving instance generations.
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
wherein prioritizing the storage of the tagged data corresponding to the inputs and outputs associated with the one or more survivor generations comprises storing the tagged data in a higher memory tier than data corresponding to non-surviving instance generations.
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 5,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
calculating a storage requirement based on the data of each of the instance generations
As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a human can mentally calculate a storage requirement based on past experiences.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” to the judicial exception.
As to claims 6,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 5, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
providing the calculated storage requirement to the storage controller
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The storage controller is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
providing the calculated storage requirement to the storage controller
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The storage controller is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claims 7,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is directed to the abstract idea described above in claim 6, but does not recite any other abstract ideas or any other judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
informing the storage controller that the one or more survivor generations include one or more storage characteristics that match previously stored instance generations.
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
informing the storage controller that the one or more survivor generations include one or more storage characteristics that match previously stored instance generations.
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The computer system, one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media, and storage are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 9 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 10 has similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 11 has similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 12 has similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 13 has similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 14 has similar limitations as claim 7. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 15 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
The non-transitory computer readable medium, one or more processors, and storage are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 16 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 17 has similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 18 has similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 19 has similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 20 has similar limitations as claim 7. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yarabolu (US 2023/0385251) in view of Bolik et al (US 2016/0299711)
As to claim 1, Yarabolu a method of optimizing storage usage of evolutionary algorithms (paragraph [0005]…the disclosed system and methods provide an additional technical advantage of improving query performance of the database), executable by one or more processors, comprising:
executing one or more instance generations associated with an evolutionary algorithm (paragraph [0029]…genetic algorithm 132 randomly combines the data segments 140 to generate an initial set of data chromosomes 142 that represent an initial generation/population 144 for the genetic algorithm 132)(Examiner’s Note: “initial generation” reads on “instance generations”);
identifying data corresponding to inputs and outputs associated with
executing the one or more instance generations, (paragraph [0029]…genetic algorithm 132 randomly combines the data segments 140 to generate an initial set of data chromosomes 142 that represent an initial generation/population 144 for the genetic algorithm 132)(Examiner’s Note: “data segments” reads on “identifying data”);
wherein for each of the one or more instance generations, the data is tagged in storage to associate the inputs and outputs with a respective instance generation ([0030] At operation 206 database manager 130 determines an optimization metric 134 for each data segment 140 of the plurality of data chromosomes 142 in the initial generation) (Examiner’s Note: “optimizations metric” reads on “data is tagged”);
determining one or more survivor generations from among the one or more instance generations based on analyzing a fitness associated with the instance generations (paragraph [0038]…database manager 130 may be configured to calculate and record a fitness score 136 for each data segment 140 initially generated for inclusion in the initial generation. The fitness score 136 of a data segment 140 equals a number of iterations of the genetic algorithm 132 the data segment 140 survived before the genetic algorithm 132 was terminated (e.g., upon generations converging). A data segment 140 is determined to have survived an iteration when the data segment is part of the next generation);
identifying tagged data corresponding to inputs and outputs associated with the one or more survivor generations (paragraph [0039]…for each data segment 140 database manager 130 determines whether the fitness score 136 of the data segment 140 equals or is below a threshold fitness score. When the fitness score 136 of the data segment 140 equals or is below the threshold fitness score) (Examiner’s Note: “threshold” reads on “identifying” ); and
instruct a storage controller to prioritize storage of the tagged data corresponding to the inputs and outputs associated with the one or more survivor generations (paragraph [0039]… database manager deletes one or more data segments 140 from the database 120 based on the fitness scores 136 of the data segments 140. As described above, once the genetic algorithm 132 is terminated after the generations have converged and the final fitness scores 136 of each data segment 140 have been recorded, database manager 130 may be configured to determine which data segments 140 can be deleted based on the fitness scores 136 of the data segments 140) (Examiner’s Note: “database manager” reads on “storage controller” ; “deletes one or more data segments ” reads on “prioritizing storage of the tagged data”);
Yarabolu fails to explicitly show/teach performing at least one action selected from the group consisting of: modifying cache allocation of the tagged data such that the tagged data is retained in a cache during execution of a subsequent generation of the evolutionary algorithm, and modifying memory tier placement of the tagged data such that the tagged data is promoted to a higher memory tier during execution of the subsequent generation of the evolutionary.
However, Bolik et al teaches performing at least one action selected from the group consisting of: modifying cache allocation of the tagged data such that the tagged data is retained in a cache during execution of a subsequent generation of the evolutionary algorithm, and modifying memory tier placement of the tagged data such that the tagged data is promoted to a higher memory tier during execution of the subsequent generation of the evolutionary (paragraph [0016] In an embodiment, this solution offers significant power and flexibility in distinguishing between high and low priority volumes, as well as clarifying actual needs of a volume to avoid situations in which lower-priority volumes temporarily crowd out higher-priority ones. An embodiment in accordance with the present invention builds off of existing evolutionary algorithms or machine learning algorithms by providing a unique fitness function that takes into account storage-specific knowledge and various other considerations ; paragraph [0021] In an embodiment in accordance with the present invention, each server computer 118, 124, and 130 may host storage devices 121-123, 127-129, and 133-135, respectively, that provide different tiers of storage. For example, storage devices 121-123 may be high-tier storage generally associated with a disk system providing highly reliable, accurate storage, and high-speed data interchange. In order to accommodate the need for various tiers of storage that efficiently accommodate the storage requirements of diverse applications (such as applications 112-114, hosted by computer system 102) across a variety of host computer systems, one or more server computers, such as servers 118, 124, and 130, may host multiple storage devices as noted above)(Examiner’s Note: “evolutionary algorithms or machine learning algorithms by providing a unique fitness function that takes into account storage-specific knowledge” reads on “and modifying memory tier placement of the tagged data such that the tagged data is promoted to a higher memory tier during execution of the subsequent generation of the evolutionary”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, for Yarabolu fails to perform at least one action selected from the group consisting of: modifying cache allocation of the tagged data such that the tagged data is retained in a cache during execution of a subsequent generation of the evolutionary algorithm, and modifying memory tier placement of the tagged data such that the tagged data is promoted to a higher memory tier during execution of the subsequent generation of the evolutionary as in Bolik et al, for the purpose of efficiently accommodate the storage requirements of diverse applications (Taught in paragraph [0021]).
As to claim 2, Yarabolu the method further comprising iterating through survivor generations until a fitness threshold associated with the evolutionary algorithm is reached (paragraph [0038]…database manager 130 may be configured to calculate and record a fitness score 136 for each data segment 140 initially generated for inclusion in the initial generation. The fitness score 136 of a data segment 140 equals a number of iterations of the genetic algorithm 132 the data segment 140 survived before the genetic algorithm 132 was terminated (e.g., upon generations converging). A data segment 140 is determined to have survived an iteration when the data segment is part of the next generation)
As to claim 3, Yarabolu the method further comprising wherein prioritizing the storage of the tagged data corresponding to the inputs and outputs associated with the one or more survivor generations comprises releasing data corresponding to inputs and outputs associated with non-surviving instance generations (paragraph [0038]… A data segment 140 is determined to have survived an iteration when the data segment is part of the next generation. For example, when a data segment 140 is eliminated after 3 iterations, the database manager 130 determines the fitness score 136 of the data segment 140 as 3 ; paragraph [0039]… database manager deletes one or more data segments 140 from the database 120 based on the fitness scores 136 of the data segments 140. As described above, once the genetic algorithm 132 is terminated after the generations have converged and the final fitness scores 136 of each data segment 140 have been recorded, database manager 130 may be configured to determine which data segments 140 can be deleted based on the fitness scores 136 of the data segments 140) (Examiner’s Note: “deletes one or more data segments ” reads on “prioritizing storage of the tagged data” ; data segment is eliminated” reads on “non-surviving instance generations”);
As to claim 4, Yarabolu teaches the method prioritizing the storage of the tagged data corresponding to the inputs and outputs associated with the one or more survivor generations wherein storing the tagged data in a higher memory tier than data corresponding to non-surviving instance generations (paragraph [0031]…optimization metric 134 of a data segment 140 indicates to what degree the data segment 140 satisfies an optimization criteria which may include a one or more data importance parameters 138. A higher optimization metric 134 indicates a higher importance. Data importance parameters 138 may include a plurality of importance parameters 138, wherein each data importance parameter 138 indicates whether a data segment 140 is a certain type of data… when a data segment 140 includes data that is needed for regulatory compliance, database manager 130 may determine that the data segment is important for compliance purposes. In another example, when a data segment 140 includes data that is critical for data integrity (e.g., calculation of other data parameters depends on data from this data segment), database manager 130 may determine that the data segment 140 is important from a data rules perspective. Database manager 130 may be configured to determine whether a data segment corresponds any one or more of the data importance parameters 138.) (Examiner’s Note: “optimization metric /data importance parameter” reads on “higher memory tier”).
As to claim 5, Yarabolu the method further comprising calculating a storage requirement based on the data for each of the instance generations (paragraph [0031]…optimization metric 134 of a data segment 140 indicates to what degree the data segment 140 satisfies an optimization criteria which may include a one or more data importance parameters 138. A higher optimization metric 134 indicates a higher importance. Data importance parameters 138 may include a plurality of importance parameters 138, wherein each data importance parameter 138 indicates whether a data segment 140 is a certain type of data… when a data segment 140 includes data that is needed for regulatory compliance, database manager 130 may determine that the data segment is important for compliance purposes. In another example, when a data segment 140 includes data that is critical for data integrity (e.g., calculation of other data parameters depends on data from this data segment), database manager 130 may determine that the data segment 140 is important from a data rules perspective. Database manager 130 may be configured to determine whether a data segment corresponds any one or more of the data importance parameters 138.) (Examiner’s Note: “optimization metric /data importance parameter” reads on “storage requirement”).
As to claim 6, Yarabolu the method further comprising calculated a storage requirement to a storage controller (paragraph [0031]…optimization metric 134 of a data segment 140 indicates to what degree the data segment 140 satisfies an optimization criteria which may include a one or more data importance parameters 138. A higher optimization metric 134 indicates a higher importance. Data importance parameters 138 may include a plurality of importance parameters 138, wherein each data importance parameter 138 indicates whether a data segment 140 is a certain type of data… when a data segment 140 includes data that is needed for regulatory compliance, database manager 130 may determine that the data segment is important for compliance purposes. In another example, when a data segment 140 includes data that is critical for data integrity (e.g., calculation of other data parameters depends on data from this data segment), database manager 130 may determine that the data segment 140 is important from a data rules perspective. Database manager 130 may be configured to determine whether a data segment corresponds any one or more of the data importance parameters 138.) (Examiner’s Note: “database manager” reads on “storage controller”).
As to claim 7, Yarabolu the method further comprising informing the storage controller that the one or more survivor generations include one or more storage characteristics that match previously stored instance generations (paragraph [0023]… Genetic algorithm 132 may terminate the iterations in response to detecting that offspring data chromosomes 142 produced for a newly formed generation have no significant difference from offspring data chromosomes 142 of the previous one or more generations 144. For example, genetic algorithm 132 may determine that offspring data chromosomes 142 produced for a newly formed generation have no significant difference from offspring data chromosomes 142 of the previous one or more generations 144, when the optimization metrics 134 of the data chromosomes in the generations are same/similar, or when the optimization metrics 134 have no significant improvement over two or more generations 144).
Claim 8 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 9 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 10 has similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 11 has similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 12 has similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 13 has similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 14 has similar limitations as claim 7. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 15 has similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 16 has similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 17 has similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 18 has similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 19 has similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 20 has similar limitations as claim 7. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
The newly added limitations overcome the Claim Objection and the Claim Objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The newly added amendments overcame the Yarabolu reference as previously applied. However, Bolik et al clearly teaches performing at least one action selected from the group consisting of: modifying cache allocation of the tagged data such that the tagged data is retained in a cache during execution of a subsequent generation of the evolutionary algorithm, and modifying memory tier placement of the tagged data such that the tagged data is promoted to a higher memory tier during execution of the subsequent generation of the evolutionary.
Therefore, Yarabolu in view of Bolik et al shows all the limitations as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The 101 Rejection still has not been overcome. The claims are abstract and the steps in the claims can be completed with a mental process and/or generic computer components. Additionally, the steps in the claims do not describe an improvement of technology in any way.
The applicant argues:
The Office Action states that "An improvement to a computer functionality must be reflected in the claims through a specific technical solution to a technical problem" and "the claims do not recite any particular improvement to a storage structure, memory architecture, data access mechanism, or hardware configuration. Instead, the claims broadly recite functional results such as "prioritizing storage" and "improving storage access" without specifying how
these results are achieved in a manner that improves the underlying computer technology." (Office Action, pages 25-26).
The pending claims, as amended, similarly recite "instructing a storage controller to prioritize storage of the tagged data corresponding to the inputs and outputs associated with the one or more survivor generations to improve storage access to the inputs and outputs during execution of the one or more survivor generations". (Claim 1).
Accordingly, the pending claims reflect a specific technical solution (instructing the storage controller to prioritize tagged data) to a technical problem (managing storage of data for an evolutionary algorithm), and the pending claims recite a particular improvement to a data access mechanism (providing information to the storage controller that enables the storage controller to prioritize storage).
The examiner disagrees. The amended claims still fail to recite a specific technological improvement to computer functionality or storage architecture, and instead the applicant continues to recite desired results at a high level of generality. “Instructing a storage controller to prioritize data” and “improve storage access” merely states what is to be accomplished, without reciting how the controller is technology modified or how any storage of data is improved. As claimed, the controller is simply a generic computer component performing conventional data management functions based on priorities.
The applicant argues:
Further, Applicant's specification and claims meet the requirements set out by MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). Applicant's specification in I [0011] describes the problem that "evolutionary algorithms have been considered too computationally expensive for many contexts. While modern compute clusters, mainframes, cloud computing, high power microprocessors, etc. have enabled their use for non trivial problems, the use of evolutionary algorithms is still a computationally intensive process that may require many generations and iterations to train the system before it will converge to a good solution. Moreover, training new generations of the evolutionary algorithm may use additional resources, such as processor time and storage space in order to store successful previous generations".
Applicant's specification in Я [0011] and [0031] describes one solution to the problem above. Namely, "It may be advantageous, therefore, to track the storage and resource use of a given program instance executing one or more evolutionary algorithms during the running phase of a given program. A given program instance generation may have wholly different resource access characteristics compared to a competing instance generation. By attempting to model the expected resource usage of the child program instances as a function of the parent instance's resource usage, this information is fed back to a storage controller to optimize tiering and expected resource usage for the next generation of programs." (Emphasis added)."Prioritizing the data corresponding to inputs and outputs associated with the determined survivor generations may include releasing data corresponding to inputs and outputs associated with non-surviving instance generations or storing data corresponding to the determined survivor generations in a higher memory tier than data corresponding to non-surviving instance generations for faster memory access for the determined survivor generations."
The pending claims reflect the disclosed improvement by reciting "instructing a storage controller to prioritize storage of the tagged data corresponding to the inputs and outputs associated with the one or more survivor generations to improve storage access
The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s position, as the arguments presented rely on limitations that are neither explicitly recited in the claims nor reasonably inferred from them. At no point in the pending claims does the appellant assert, describe, or even suggest the limitation of “to track the storage and resource use of a given program instance executing one or more evolutionary algorithms during the running phase of a given program. A given program instance generation may have wholly different resource access characteristics compared to a competing instance generation. By attempting to model the expected resource usage of the child program instances as a function of the parent instance's resource usage, this information is fed back to a storage controller to optimize tiering and expected resource usage for the next generation of programs." (Emphasis added)."Prioritizing the data corresponding to inputs and outputs associated with the determined survivor generations may include releasing data corresponding to inputs and outputs associated with non-surviving instance generations or storing data corresponding to the determined survivor generations in a higher memory tier than data corresponding to non-surviving instance generations for faster memory access for the determined survivor generations.” Rather, the applicant appears to have introduced this language as part of the argument, but the alleged limitations cannot be read into the claims when it is not supported by the actual claim language. Without clear support in the claim language and without sufficient explanation of the terminology being relied upon, the examiner cannot give weight to arguments premised on these alleged limitations.
No specific controller architecture, memory structure, or access device is claimed, thus the claims merely use generic computer components to perform data management functions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's Off).
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, Omar Fernandez can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights