DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claim rejections based on prior arts
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/01/2026 with respect to claims 1-5 and 7-21 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. However, prosecution is reopened for the newly 35 USC § 101 rejection.
With respect to claim limitation “generating, in dependence upon on a software configuration of the one or more storage systems, a set of candidate updates for the software”, Examiner is equating pre-change configuration 141 and recommended memory configurations 142 of fig. 23 of Kodama to claim ‘candidate updates’. Please note, pre-change configuration 141 and recommended memory configurations 142 of fig. 23 of Kodama are generated as a result of software of a system. See paragraph 0272 of Kodama, which discloses “Furthermore, the presentation unit 107 presents, to the user, the plurality of recommended memory configurations including the memory configuration using the DCPMM and the DRAM and the memory configuration using only the DRAM, which have been determined by the configuration determination unit 106 for the execution application program determined to be the pattern C, to prompt the user to select a memory configuration. Thereby, the computer to be examined 20 can be set to have the memory configuration reflecting the intention of the user”
With respect to claim limitation “identifying a conforming update from the set of candidate updates using the software lifecycle management policy, wherein the software lifecycle management policy specifies whether a candidate update conforms or does not conform to the one or more update parameters”, in the condition of a “first recommended memory configuration (After2)”, as discloses in paragraph 0187 of Kodama, being equated to claim ‘conforming update’, see paragraphs 0185, 0271, 0272 and 0299 of Kodama which teaches a first recommended memory configuration is selected based on cost; for examples, see paragraph 0185, which discloses “Furthermore, the performance/cost graph 143 in FIG. 22 illustrates the cost (Before) in the pre-change configuration and the cost (After) in the first recommended memory configuration calculated by the cost calculation unit 103 as a broken line graph. By referring to the performance/cost graph 143 illustrated in FIG. 22, it can be understood that the recommended memory configuration can be implemented at 1/10 the cost of the pre-change configuration”, paragraph 0271 which discloses “Then, by selecting the recommended memory configuration in the pattern having the calculation characteristics close to the application (customer application 209) executed in the computer to be examined 20, the memory configuration having less performance degradation and capable of reducing the cost, as compared with the pre-change configuration, and suitable for the computer to be examined 20 can be easily acquired”, paragraph 0272, which discloses “Furthermore, the presentation unit 107 presents, to the user, the plurality of recommended memory configurations including the memory configuration using the DCPMM and the DRAM and the memory configuration using only the DRAM, which have been determined by the configuration determination unit 106 for the execution application program determined to be the pattern C, to prompt the user to select a memory configuration. Thereby, the computer to be examined 20 can be set to have the memory configuration reflecting the intention of the user” and paragraph 0299, which discloses “The computer to be examined 20 may execute two or more types of customer applications 209. The analysis server 10 may present the recommended memory configuration to each of these two or more types of customer applications 209, and the user may select one from among the presented recommended memory configurations and apply the one”.
REJECTIONS NOT BASED ON PRIOR ART
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 1-5 and 7-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject.
Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception for abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is directed to generating and applying a policy to select a software update based on input and configuration data - activities that amount to organizing human activity and mental processes, which are abstract idea. Additionally, when considered as whole, the claim does not include an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The claim merely recites generic computing operations (e.g., generating, identifying) without any improvements to functioning of a computer or any specific technological implementation. The claim does not add any meaningful limitations beyond the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea which is not a statutory class of invention.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kodama et al. (US pub. #2021/0173565), hereinafter, “Kodama”.
At the outset, Applicant is reminded that claims subject to examination will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). With this in mind, the discussion will focus on how the terms and relationships between the terms in the claims are met by the references.
2. As per claims 1, 10 and 17, Kodama discloses a method comprising: generating, based on user input (see paragraph 0257, which discloses “in step C3, the user performs an input operation (for example, button selection of OK, approval, next, or the like) for obtaining further information regarding the recommended memory configuration illustrated on the presentation screen 140. Furthermore, in the case where there is a plurality of recommended memory configurations as in the case of the pattern C illustrated in FIG. 23 and the like, the user may perform an operation to select one recommended memory configuration from among the plurality of recommended memory configurations”), a software lifecycle management policy (a cost, as disclose in paragraphs 0149, 0183 and 0188) for software on one or more storage systems [see paragraph 0183, which discloses “he presentation unit 107 creates the performance/cost graph 143 by plotting a performance value of the pre-change configuration and a performance value of the recommended memory configuration calculated by the performance calculation unit 104 on the same graph. Similarly, the presentation unit 107 creates the performance/cost graph 143 by plotting the cost for configuring the pre-change configuration and the cost for configuring the recommended memory configuration calculated by the cost calculation unit 103 on the same graph” or paragraph 0271, which discloses “then, by selecting the recommended memory configuration in the pattern having the calculation characteristics close to the application (customer application 209) executed in the computer to be examined 20, the memory configuration having less performance degradation and capable of reducing the cost, as compared with the pre-change configuration, and suitable for the computer to be examined 20 can be easily acquired”], the software lifecycle management policy comprising one or more update parameters (see paragraph 0183 and fig. 24 which disclose performance values such as 0.78, 0.83, 0.63 and 0.5); generating, in dependence upon on a software configuration of the one or more storage systems, a set of candidate updates (a pre-change configuration 141 and recommended memory configurations 142 of fig. 23) for the software; and identifying a conforming update (a “first recommended memory configuration (After2)”, as discloses in paragraph 0187) from the set of candidate updates using the software lifecycle management policy, wherein the software lifecycle management policy specifies whether a candidate update conforms or does not conform to the one or more update parameters [see paragraph 0185, which discloses “Furthermore, the performance/cost graph 143 in FIG. 22 illustrates the cost (Before) in the pre-change configuration and the cost (After) in the first recommended memory configuration calculated by the cost calculation unit 103 as a broken line graph. By referring to the performance/cost graph 143 illustrated in FIG. 22, it can be understood that the recommended memory configuration can be implemented at 1/10 the cost of the pre-change configuration”, paragraph 0271 which discloses “Then, by selecting the recommended memory configuration in the pattern having the calculation characteristics close to the application (customer application 209) executed in the computer to be examined 20, the memory configuration having less performance degradation and capable of reducing the cost, as compared with the pre-change configuration, and suitable for the computer to be examined 20 can be easily acquired”, paragraph 0272, which discloses “Furthermore, the presentation unit 107 presents, to the user, the plurality of recommended memory configurations including the memory configuration using the DCPMM and the DRAM and the memory configuration using only the DRAM, which have been determined by the configuration determination unit 106 for the execution application program determined to be the pattern C, to prompt the user to select a memory configuration. Thereby, the computer to be examined 20 can be set to have the memory configuration reflecting the intention of the user” and paragraph 0299, which discloses “The computer to be examined 20 may execute two or more types of customer applications 209. The analysis server 10 may present the recommended memory configuration to each of these two or more types of customer applications 209, and the user may select one from among the presented recommended memory configurations and apply the one”. Note, based on cost, a first recommended memory configuration is select].
3. As per claims 2 and 11, Kodama discloses “The method of claim 1” [see rejection to claim 1 above], wherein the software includes at least one of: a storage controller application; a software defined storage application; a storage system data services application (see paragraph 0263 and fig. 1); or an agent of a cloud-based management service.
4. As per claims 3 and 12, Kodama discloses wherein the software lifecycle management policy includes a set of policies, the set of policies including at least one of: a version policy; an adoption policy; a classification policy; or a deployment policy (see paragraph 0254).
5. As per claims 4 and 13, Kodama discloses wherein the conforming update places the software in conformance with the software lifecycle management policy (see paragraph 0254).
6. As per claim 5, Kodama discloses wherein the software lifecycle management policy excludes nonconforming updates (see paragraph 0294).
7. As per claims 7, 14 and 18, Kodama discloses further comprising: providing a lifecycle management recommendation based on the software lifecycle management policy (see paragraph 0294).
8. As per claims 8, 15 and 19, Kodama discloses further comprising: deploying, in response to a user request, the conforming update to the one or more storage systems (see paragraph 0187).
9. As per claims 9, 16 and 20, Kodama discloses further comprising: deploying, automatically, the conforming update to the one or more storage systems based on the software lifecycle management policy (see paragraphs 0187 and 0294).
10. As per claim 21, Kodama discloses wherein the one or more update parameters
comprise at least one of a minimum update version age, a minimum scale of adoption of an update [see fig. 24 and paragraph 0187, which teach a ‘minimum scale of adoption’ for a recommendation change/update. For example, paragraph 0187 discloses “In the example illustrated in FIG. 24, a statement that “considerable performance degradation occurs with a probability of 30% in a case where there is large variation in the memory access” is displayed as the comment 144 for describing the first recommended memory configuration (After2). Furthermore, a statement that “considerable performance degradation does not occur even in a case where there is large variation in the memory access” is displayed as the comment 144 for describing the second recommended memory configuration (After1)”], a classification of an update, an update deployment schedule, or features provided by an update.
CLOSING COMMENTS
CONCLUSION
a. STATUS OF CLAIMS IN THE APPLICATION
The following is a summary of the treatment and status of all claims in the
application as recommended by M.P.E.P. 707.07(i):
a (1) CLAIMS REJECTED IN THE APPLICATION
Per the instant office action, claims 1-5 and 7-21 have received a first action on the merits and are subject of a first action non-final.
b. DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCES
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
Examiner should be directed to Ernest Unelus whose telephone number is (571) 272-
8596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
IMPORTANT NOTE
If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Mr. Idriss Alrobaye, can be reached at the following telephone number: Area Code (571) 270-1023.
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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PMR system, see her//pair-direct.uspto.gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217- 91 97 (toll-free).
/Ernest Unelus/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2181
Prosecution Insights