Detailed Action
This is action in response to RCE filed on 02/12/2026.
This action is response to application filed on 12/14/2022 which claims benefit claim to Chines application no. CN202211305568.5 filed on 10/24/2022.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-22 are pending.
Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-22 are rejected.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/12/2026 has been entered.
Applicant's Response
In Applicant's Response dated 09/09/2025, Applicant amended claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-20, added new claims 21-22, and canceled claims 8, and 16. Applicant argued against various rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 11/13/2025.
In light of applicant’s amendments/remarks, all rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth previously are withdrawn.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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 is directed to A method, comprising:
acquiring, by a system comprising at least one processor, storage resource usage data in a historical period related to a user;
determining, by the system, pattern information of the storage resource usage data according to an observed time series of the storage resource usage data, the observed time series being a series of observed values of the storage resource usage data in the historical period;
selecting, by the system, based on the pattern information, a type of pattern of the storage resource usage data from a first group consisting of a trend pattern, a cycle pattern, and an irregular pattern;
based on the type of pattern of the storage resource usage data, selecting, by the system, a prediction method from a second group consisting of:
a first prediction method associated with the trend pattern, wherein the first prediction method comprises determining a function of the storage resource usage data of the trend pattern in the historical period using a least square process,
a second prediction method associated with the cycle pattern, wherein the second prediction method comprises determining an average of a maximum storage resource usage data and a minimum storage resource usage data of the storage resource usage data of the cycle pattern in the historical period, and
a third prediction method associated with the irregular pattern, wherein the third prediction method comprises determining an average of the storage resource usage data of the irregular pattern in the historical period;
determining, by the system, using the selected prediction method, a predicted storage resource usage amount for a target future period of the user based on the pattern information and the storage resource usage data;
determining, by the system, that the predicted storage resource usage amount for the target future period is greater than a defined threshold; and
sending, by the system, to a user device associated with the user, a prompting message indicating that the predicted storage resource usage amount for the target future period is greater than the defined threshold.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely,
mental processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper (see, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942, hereinafter “PEG”).
Mathematical Concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.
For instance, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper in conjunction with various mathematical concepts/formulas perform a method, comprising:
mentally and/or via aid pen/paper observing/evaluating/ judging/determining, pattern information of the storage resource usage data according to an observed time series of the storage resource usage data, the observed time series being a series of observed values of the storage resource usage data in the historical period;
mentally and/or via aid pen/paper observing/evaluating/ judging/selecting, based on the pattern information, a type of pattern of the storage resource usage data from a first group consisting of a trend pattern, a cycle pattern, and an irregular pattern;
based on the type of pattern of the storage resource usage data, mentally selecting, a prediction method from a second group consisting of:
a first prediction method associated with the trend pattern, wherein the first prediction method comprises determining mentally/mathematical concepts a function of the storage resource usage data of the trend pattern in the historical period using a least square process (e.g. using various mathematical concepts/calculations),
a second prediction method associated with the cycle pattern, wherein the second prediction method comprises determining mentally/via mathematical concepts an average of a maximum storage resource usage data and a minimum storage resource usage data of the storage resource usage data of the cycle pattern in the historical period (e.g. using various mathematical concepts/calculations),
and a third prediction method associated with the irregular pattern, wherein the third prediction method comprises determining mentally/via mathematical concepts an average of the storage resource usage data of the irregular pattern in the historical period (e.g. using various mathematical concepts/calculations);
mentally/via mathematical calculation/concepts determining, using the selected prediction method, a predicted storage resource usage amount for a target future period of the user based on the pattern information and the storage resource usage data;
mentally/via mathematical concepts determining, that the predicted storage resource usage amount for the target future period is greater than a defined threshold.
Per prong 2, Step 2A, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “acquiring, by a system comprising at least one processor, storage resource usage data in a historical period related to a user… system… sending, by the system, to a user device associated with the user, a prompting message indicating that the predicted storage resource usage amount for the target future period is greater than the defined threshold ”; are mere data gathering/sending/displaying steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Per Step 2B, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “acquiring, by a system comprising at least one processor, storage resource usage data in a historical period related to a user… system… sending, by the system, to a user device associated with the user, a prompting message indicating that the predicted storage resource usage amount for the target future period is greater than the defined threshold ”; are mere data gathering/sending/displaying steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. Accordingly, the above limitations singularly or in combination do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 9, and 17 are device and product claims corresponding to method claim 1 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 9, and 17 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-7, 10-15, and 18-22 when considered individually or in combination per steps as noted above are rejected under the same rational as set forth above for claims 1, 9, and 17. In particular,
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein determining the function of the trend pattern comprises: determining trend pattern data belonging to the trend pattern in the storage resource usage data by the least square process.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein determining the predicted storage resource usage amount further comprises, in response to determining that the type of pattern of the storage resource usage data is the trend pattern: determining, based on the function and the trend pattern data, subsequent storage resource usage data on a subsequent time series of a subsequent period after the target future period; and determining an average of the subsequent storage resource usage data as a part of the predicted storage resource usage amount.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper as well as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein determining the pattern information further comprises: determining cyclic data belonging to the cycle pattern in the storage resource usage data by autocorrelation or discrete Fourier transform.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper as well as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein determining the predicted storage resource usage amount further comprises, in response to determining that the type of pattern of the storage resource usage data is the cycle pattern: determining the maximum storage resource usage data and the minimum storage resource usage data on a time series in the cyclic data based on the cycle pattern.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein determining the pattern information further comprises: determining data other than trend pattern data and cyclic data in the storage resource usage data as irregular data.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 further incorporated, further recites wherein determining the average of the predicted storage resource usage amount of the irregular pattern in the historical period comprises: determining an average of the irregular data.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Claim 10-15, and 18-22 are device and product claims corresponding to method claim 2-7 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 10-15, and 18-22 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 2-7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-22 would be allowable if the above noted rejections are overcome via amendments and/or arguments. Reasons for allowance will be held in abeyance until all matters in the prosecution are closed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or moot in view of new/modified grounds of rejections.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection:
Applicant frames the invention as a technical solution to technical problem (see, response page 14-15), and analyzes claim 1 per Step 2A (prong 1, 2) and Step 2B to argue and demonstrate subject matter eligibility (see, response page (15-19).
The examiner disagrees.
Firstly, The examiner notes that the specification provides that “users… adjust reservations, reallocate resources, or optimize their usage strategies before incurring additional costs” based on warning; however, a user making adjustments/allocation based on warning is not “improvement” to the computing device/system, see - Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), “a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind”. Furthermore, the claim does not include sufficient/direct components or steps that directly changes the computers operation in order to achieve improvement (if any) based on the warning and its “entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” (MPEP 2106.05(a). In other words, the claimed invention is merely directed to collecting data, analyzing data, selecting models, performing mathematical calculations, and presenting calculations/alerts if calculated values are above a threshold. The results (e.g. calculated values) are not technical improvements, and there is no automated concrete technical action on storage or computing device/environment to cause improvement to the computing device/environment.
Secondly, as noted above in the rejections,
Per prong 1, Step 2A, recited claim elements are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely,
mental processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper (see, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942, hereinafter “PEG”).
Mathematical Concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.
For instance, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper in conjunction with various mathematical concepts/formulas perform a method, comprising:
mentally and/or via aid pen/paper observing/evaluating/ judging/determining, pattern information of the storage resource usage data according to an observed time series of the storage resource usage data, the observed time series being a series of observed values of the storage resource usage data in the historical period;
mentally and/or via aid pen/paper observing/evaluating/ judging/selecting, based on the pattern information, a type of pattern of the storage resource usage data from a first group consisting of a trend pattern, a cycle pattern, and an irregular pattern;
based on the type of pattern of the storage resource usage data, mentally selecting, a prediction method from a second group consisting of:
a first prediction method associated with the trend pattern, wherein the first prediction method comprises determining mentally/via mathematical concepts a function of the storage resource usage data of the trend pattern in the historical period using a least square process (e.g. using various mathematical concepts/calculations),
a second prediction method associated with the cycle pattern, wherein the second prediction method comprises determining mentally/via mathematical concepts an average of a maximum storage resource usage data and a minimum storage resource usage data of the storage resource usage data of the cycle pattern in the historical period (e.g. using various mathematical concepts/calculations),
and a third prediction method associated with the irregular pattern, wherein the third prediction method comprises determining mentally/via mathematical concepts an average of the storage resource usage data of the irregular pattern in the historical period (e.g. using various mathematical concepts/calculations);
mentally/via mathematical calculation/concepts determining, using the selected prediction method, a predicted storage resource usage amount for a target future period of the user based on the pattern information and the storage resource usage data;
mentally/via mathematical concepts determining, that the predicted storage resource usage amount for the target future period is greater than a defined threshold.
Per prong 2, Step 2A, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “acquiring, by a system comprising at least one processor, storage resource usage data in a historical period related to a user… system… sending, by the system, to a user device associated with the user, a prompting message indicating that the predicted storage resource usage amount for the target future period is greater than the defined threshold ”; are mere data gathering/sending/displaying steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Per Step 2B, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “acquiring, by a system comprising at least one processor, storage resource usage data in a historical period related to a user… system… sending, by the system, to a user device associated with the user, a prompting message indicating that the predicted storage resource usage amount for the target future period is greater than the defined threshold ”; are mere data gathering/sending/displaying steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. Accordingly, the above limitations singularly or in combination do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and/or moot in view of new/modified grounds of rejections.
All other arguments depend on arguments addressed above.
The examiner disagrees and/or argument are moot in view new/modified grounds of rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, can be reached on 571-270-3180 . 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.
/MUSTAFA A AMIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights