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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the amendment filed on November 3, 2025. Claims 1-3, 7-10, and 15-17 are pending, with claims 1, 7, and 15 being amended and claims 4-6, 11-14, and 18-20 being canceled.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
In re claims 1, 8, and 15, the claims recite “polling the updated storage system” at line 15. The language “the updated storage system” lacks clear antecedent basis. There is no previous recitation of updating the storage system, instead the claim recites updating a storage system simulation. It also is not clear what is meant by polling the updated storage system for an update to the user interface state using the virtual reality logic engine. Does the virtual reality logic perform the polling function or is it otherwise involved in this process? As a result, it is unclear what actually is doing the polling in the claim.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 16, and 17 depend from a rejected base claim, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons given for the base claim.
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.
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, 3, 7, 8, 10, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over by U.S. Patent No. 11,573,881 to Massaguer et al. (“Massaguer”) in view of US Publication No. 2018/0357823 by Koniki et al. (“Koniki”) and further in view of US Patent No. 10,810,899 to MacGillivray et al. (“MacGillivray”) and U.S. Patent No. 11,947,946 to Rao (“Roa”).
In re claims 1, 8, and 15, Massaguer discloses a computer program product, a computing system comprising: a memory; and a processor configured implement a computer-implemented method [Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 7, Fig. 8, #800, 810, 820, 825] comprising: receiving an action alert from a virtual reality system concerning a virtual reality representation of a storage system [col. 3, ll. 43-55, col. 5, l. 25- col. 6, l. 52, among others, describe training scenarios for storage systems simulating real world systems (e.g., reconfiguring services, servers, and network components such as adding or replacing servers) including receiving a failure alert at a user interface providing a simulation to a user]; translating the action alert into a storage system simulator event using a virtual reality logic engine [col. 3, ll. 43-55, col. 5, l. 25- col. 6, l. 52, among others, describe translating alerts, actions, and user input into metadata corresponding to events that simulate interaction with a network system]; and updating a storage system simulation corresponding to the virtual reality representation of the storage system using the storage system simulator event [col. 3, ll. 43-55, col. 5, l. 25- col. 6, l. 52, among others, describe updating system states based on the meta data of user actions including the user interfaces providing the simulation]; wherein updating the storage system simulation includes updating a user interface state for a user interface of the virtual reality representation of the storage system [col. 6, ll., 1-38, among others, describe providing a user interface that provides the updated metrics 125]; updating the virtual reality representation of the storage system on the virtual reality system [col. 6, ll., 1-38, among others, describe providing a user interface that provides the updated metrics 125 (and therefore an updated representation of the system state and its storage systems, i.e., servers].
Massaguer teaches a simulator for simulating real-world environments including providing a graphical user interface providing a representation of the simulated environment (i.e., a virtual representation of real-world environment). However, to the extent that Massaguer lacks an explicit teaching of providing a “virtual reality” representation, Koniki teaches providing training simulations with a virtual reality representation [Fig. 1, ¶¶20-27, 36, 37, among others, describe a virtual reality training for displaying virtual objects interacted with by a trainee and system for interpreting trainee actions via a command interpreter which maps the user actions to events that are visually played in the virtual reality environment].
Massaguer and Koniki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of simulations and training. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods of Massaguer to include providing a virtual reality representation of the simulation, as taught by Koniki, in order to improve the user experience, for example, by providing a more realistic and/or immersive experience.
Massaguer discloses updating the virtual reality representation of the storage system on the virtual reality system includes updating the user interface of the virtual reality representation of the storage system [col. 6, ll., 1-38, among others, describe providing a user interface that provides the updated metrics 125 (and therefore an updated representation of the system state and its storage systems, i.e., servers].
MacGillivray teaches updating a virtual reality representation of an interface of an actual device in a virtual training environment [Fig. 1, col. 4, l. 25-col. 5, l. 41 describes a virtual reality environment with controls (interface) that are updated in view of user interaction with the virtual reality equipment/controls].
Massaguer and MacGillivray are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of simulations and training. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods of Massaguer to include the updating a virtual reality representation of an interface of an actual device, as taught by MacGillivray, in order to improve the user experience, for example, by providing a more realistic and/or immersive experience.
Massaguer, Koniki, and MacGillivray teach a system wherein updating the virtual reality representation of the storage system on the virtual reality system includes updating the user interface rendered within the virtual reality representation of the storage system. Massaguer discloses receiving updates from the simulation and translating those updates using logic of the user device presenting the simulation via a graphical user interface [col. 3, ll. 43-55, col. 5, l. 25- col. 6, l. 52]. Massaguer in view of MacGillivray teaches the updates may be for a control interface of an actual device [Fig. 1, col. 4, l. 25-col. 5, l. 41 describes a virtual reality environment with controls (interface) that are updated in view of user interaction with the virtual reality equipment/controls]. However, Massaguer, Koniki, and MacGillivray lack an explicit teaching of updating states from the simulated storage system using polling.
There are two basic ways of checking for updates to a system state polling and interrupts. Rao teaches updating of system states using polling [col. 17, l. 54 to col. 18, l. 26].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods of Massaguer in view of Koniki and MacGillivray to include updating a virtual reality representation of an interface of an actual device using polling, as taught by Rao, for the predictable result of updating system states and because polling is simpler to implement in low-level hardware and provide predictable timing for specific tasks.
In re claims 3, 10, and 17, Massaguer discloses updating the storage system simulation includes updating a storage system simulation state [col. 5, l. 48- col. 6, l. 17, among others, describe updating storage system simulation states].
In re claim 7, Massaguer discloses receiving a selection of a storage system simulation from a plurality of storage system simulations corresponding to physical storage systems [col. 2, l. 45-col. 3, l. 64, among others, simulations including configuration (selections) of physical storage system (e.g., servers)].
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Massaguer in view of, Koniki, MacGillivray, and Roa and further in view of US Publication No. 2017/0025040 by Maturana et al. (“Maturana”).
In re claims 2, 9, and 16 Massaguer discloses wherein updating the storage system simulation includes providing the storage system simulator event to the storage system simulation [col. 5, l. 25- col. 6, l. 52]. lacks providing events using application programming interface (API). However, Maturana teaches includes providing the storage system simulator event to the storage system simulation using an application programming interface (API) [¶43].
Massaguer and Maturana are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of simulations and training. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods of Massaguer to include the API, as taught by Maturana, in order to simplify providing simulations, for example, by providing facilitating data exchange between applications of different systems so that they aren’t dependent on any particular software/implementation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 3, 2025 have been fully considered.
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The objection to claims 14 and 15 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 7-10, and 15-17 as directed to non-eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101 is withdrawn in view of the Amendments to the claims and Applicant’s remarks.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to anticipation and obviousness of claims 1-3, 7-10, and 15-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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.
/ANDREW BODENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715