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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant detailed action is in response to Applicant's submission filed on 31 December 2025.
REJECTION 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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1
Step 2A Prong One: The "receiving", "identifying", "applying", and "generating" steps, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, the "receiving", "identifying", "applying", and "generating" steps in the context of this claim encompass data analysis and can be performed in the human mind and/or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The “training” step steps, as drafted, is process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover ) specific mathematical calculations (a backpropagation algorithm and a gradient descent algorithm) to perform the training and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “establishing” step, "computer-implementable," "data center," "data center asset parts.” The “establishing” step, "computer-implementable," "data center," "data center asset parts” are recited at a high-level of generality (see e.g., Specification [0002]) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). As per MPEP 2106.04(D)(I), “[g]enerally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use,” does not constitute integration of a judicial exception into a practical application. As per MPEP 2106.06(f)(1), “ remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information” constitutes additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception. Such remote management solutions are further disclosed in cited art as generic (see e.g., 11165655, FIG 1: 118, 11095706 FIG 6: 510). Accordingly, these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the “establishing” step, "computer-implementable," "data center," "data center asset parts” are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment is not enough to qualify as significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(A)(IV)). The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 7
Step 2A Prong One: The "receiving", "identifying", "applying", and "generating" steps, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, the "receiving", "identifying", "applying", and "generating" steps in the context of this claim encompass data analysis and can be performed in the human mind and/or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The “training” step steps, as drafted, is process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover ) specific mathematical calculations (a backpropagation algorithm and a gradient descent algorithm) to perform the training and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “establishing” step, "processor," “data bus,” “data center asset client module,” “non-transitory computer readable storage medium,” ”data center,” ”data center asset parts.” The “establishing” step, "processor," “data bus,” “data center asset client module,” “non-transitory computer readable storage medium,” ”data center,” ”data center asset parts” are recited at a high-level of generality (see e.g., Specification [0002]) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). As per MPEP 2106.04(D)(I), “[g]enerally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use,” does not constitute integration of a judicial exception into a practical application. As per MPEP 2106.06(f)(1), “ remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information” constitutes additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception. Such remote management solutions are further disclosed in cited art as generic (see e.g., 11165655, FIG 1: 118, 11095706 FIG 6: 510). Accordingly, these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the “establishing” step, "processor," “data bus,” “data center asset client module,” “non-transitory computer readable storage medium,” ”data center,” ”data center asset parts” are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment is not enough to qualify as significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(A)(IV)). The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 13
Step 2A Prong One: The "receiving", "identifying", "applying", and "generating" steps, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, the "receiving", "identifying", "applying", and "generating" steps in the context of this claim encompass data analysis and can be performed in the human mind and/or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The “training” step steps, as drafted, is process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover ) specific mathematical calculations (a backpropagation algorithm and a gradient descent algorithm) to perform the training and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “establishing” step, "non-transitory computer readable storage medium embodying program code," ”data center,” ”data center asset parts.” The “establishing” step, "non-transitory computer readable storage medium embodying program code," ”data center,” ”data center asset parts,” are recited at a high-level of generality (see e.g., Specification [0002]) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). As per MPEP 2106.04(D)(I), “[g]enerally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use,” does not constitute integration of a judicial exception into a practical application. As per MPEP 2106.06(f)(1), “ remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information” constitutes additional elements that are mere instructions to apply an exception. Such remote management solutions are further disclosed in cited art as generic (see e.g., 11165655, FIG 1: 118, 11095706 FIG 6: 510). Accordingly, these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the “establishing” step, "non-transitory computer readable storage medium embodying program code," ”data center,” ”data center asset parts” are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment is not enough to qualify as significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(A)(IV)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Per dependent claims 2-6, 8-12,14-20 the claims do not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and/or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
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.
Claim 1-3,7-9,13-15,19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US Pat No. 11868629) in view of Gussin (US Pat No. 11416306) and Ankam (US Pat No. 11095706).
As per claim [1,7,13], a computer-implementable method for performing a data center management and monitoring operation, comprising:
the data center asset (see e.g., Singh FIG 1D: 119a) being contained within a data center of a data center customer (see Singh FIG 1D: 124);
receiving data center asset customer information from a data center customer (see Singh FIG 5: 552 and COL 48 LINES 43-50: “input specification”);
the data center asset customer information being associated with a data center of the data center customer (see Singh COL 42 LINES 45-55: “As one example, a user may provide specific hardware or storage system specifications (454) that describe, among other things, expected I/O operation sizes for reads or writes, expected types of workloads, data reduction ratios expected for an expected type of workload, requested IOPS, current storage usage metrics, or other parameters that are descriptive of one or more storage system characteristics.”);
identifying a plurality of data center asset features from the data center asset customer information (see Singh FIG 5: 502 and COL 48 LINE 59-65: “Translating (502) the one or more specifications (552) characterizing requirements into workload parameters (554)”);
the plurality of data center asset features being associated with data center asset parts (see Singh COL 42 LINES 45-55: “As one example, a user may provide specific hardware or storage system specifications (454) that describe, among other things, expected I/O operation sizes for reads or writes, expected types of workloads, data reduction ratios expected for an expected type of workload, requested IOPS, current storage usage metrics, or other parameters that are descriptive of one or more storage system characteristics.”)
training a configuration model based upon the plurality of data center asset features associated with the data center asset parts, the configuration model executing on the configuration system of the data center monitoring and management console (see Singh FIG 4: 424 and COL 45 LINES 1-12: “A performance modeling service (410) may include one or more performance models (410A-410P). Further, each of the performance models (410A-410P) may be models generated or constructed based different combinations of inputs such as: requested storage services, one or more data sets, usage scenarios, and workload parameters that may be provided to different combinations of and types of data storage systems such as: storage systems or arrays using different quantities of storage devices, different types of storage devices, virtualized storage systems, non-virtualized storage arrays, or combinations of these data storage systems.”);
[Singh discloses the capacity modeling service uses data center asset features associated with the data center asset parts to the extent the performance metrics are based on the plurality of data center asset features associated with the data center asset parts (see Singh COL 57 LINES 45-55: “For example, the storage system sizing service (404) may determine, based upon one or more storage system configurations (568) and upon the one or more storage system metrics (424), a growth model for a particular type of dataset or workload to be stored”).]
applying the configuration model to the plurality of data center asset features, the configuration model generating a data center asset part distribution of the data center asset parts(see Singh FIG 5: 504 and COL 49 LINE 21-30: “Generating (504) the plurality of performance modeling results”); and,
generating a data center asset part configuration for the data center of the data center customer using the configuration model (see Singh FIG 5: 506 and COL 50: “Selecting (506), in dependence upon the performance model results (556), one or more distinctly configurated data storage systems”).
However, Singh does not expressly disclose but Gussin discloses
the data center asset part distribution including a distribution of usage of the data center asset parts, the usage of the plurality of data center asset features representing an intensity of usage of each of the data center asset parts (Gussin FIG 4: 402 and COL 8 LINES 40-50);
distribution of usage of the data center asset parts being divided into a plurality of usage distribution mapping areas, the usage distribution mapping areas being associated with respective usage capacities (see Gussin COL 4 LINES 13-25: “ In some embodiments, the resource utilization service 116 can monitor resources in a particular area or space, such as an aisle of a data center, a server rack, a group of server racks, a floor or building, a “region” including one or multiple data centers, a “zone” within a region, a city, a state, a country, etc. “); and,
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Singh to further collect usage of the data center parts representing an intensity of usage as taught by Gusssin.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of more accurate resource allocation (see Gussin COL 8 LINES 50-60).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to further utilize usage of the data center asset parts as taught by Gussin for the benefit of more accurate resource allocation to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
However, Singh does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Ankam discloses
establishing a secure communication channel between a data center asset (see e.g., Ankam FIG 6: 630) and a data center monitoring and management console (see e.g., Ankam FIG 6: 610), the data center monitoring and management console including a configuration system (see Ankam COL 58 LINE 58-COL 59 LINE 5),
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to establish a secure communication channel between a data center asset and a data center monitoring and management console as taught by Ankam.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of secure cloud based management (see Ankam COL 58 LINE 58-65).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Singh to establish a secure communication channel between a data center asset and a data center monitoring and management console for the benefit of cloud based management to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
As per claim [2,8,14], the method of claim 1, wherein:
the data center asset part configuration includes a data center asset disk array configuration (see Singh COL 37 LINES 40-45).
As per claim [3,9,15], the method of claim 1, wherein:
the configuration model comprises a predictive machine learning model (see COL 51 LINES 21-25).
As per claim 19, The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein:
the computer executable instructions are deployable to a client system from a server system at a remote location (see Singh COL 59 LINES 23-30)
As per claim 20, the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein:
the computer executable instructions are provided by a service provider to a user on an on-demand basis (see Singh COL 11 LINES 30-40).
Claim 4, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US Pat No. 11868629) in view of Gussin (US Pat No. 11416306) and Ankam (US Pat No. 11095706) as applied to claim 1, 7 and 13 above and further in view of Ouellet (US PG PUB No. 20210110219).
As per claim [4,10,16], the method of claim 3, wherein:
the predictive machine learning model generates a probabilistic distribution of usage of the data center asset features (see Singh COL 52 LINES 20-30) ; and,
the generating the data center asset part configuration is based upon the probabilistic distribution of usage of the data center asset features (see Singh COL 53 LINES 40-50).
However, Singh does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Ouellet discloses
the probabilistic distribution is plotted as time versus intensity of usage (see e.g., Ouellet FIG 7: 702 and [0124]);
estimating median usage percentage using a quintile regressing model (see e.g., Ouellet [0174]);
generating the data asset part configuration based on the same (see e.g., Ouellet [0174]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to further plot and analyze the data using quintile regression model as taught by Ouellet.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of acknowledged method of data analysis (see e.g., Ouellette [0173]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to further plot, analyze and generate based on a quintile regression model as taught by Ouellet for the benefit of an acknowledged method of data analysis to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 5-6,11-12,17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US Pat No. 11868629) in view of Gussin (US Pat No. 11416306) and Ankam (US Pat No. 11095706) as applied to claims 1, 7, and 13 above and further in view of Sarkar (US PG PUB No. 20190108888).
As per claim [5,11,17], the method of claim 1, further comprising:
However, Singh does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Sarkar discloses
identifying data center asset warranty grades associated with data center asset parts included within the data center asset part configuration (see Sarkar FIG 3: 305 and [0041]).
[As per dependent claims, warranty grades correspond to writes per day.]
It would have been obvious before the effective further date of the invention to further model warranty grades as taught by Sarkar.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of failure analysis (see Sarkar [0041]).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the invention to further model warranty grades as taught by Sarkar for the benefit of failure analysis to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
As per claim [6,12,18], the method of claim 5, wherein:
at least some of the data center asset warranty grades include associated solid state disk (SSD) warranty grades (see Sarkar [0042]: “SSDs”); and, the SSD endurance warranty grades are measured as one or both of a Drive Writes Per Day (DWPD) endurance warranty (see FIG 3: 305 and [0041]) and a Terabytes Written (TBW) endurance warranty.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
1st ARGUMENT:
It is respectfully submitted that the claims do not recite matter that falls within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance effective January 7, 2019. Specifically, the claims do not per se recite mathematical concepts, methods of organizing human activity or mental processes.
Examiner maintains the claims falls into mental process because as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III) “mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” and specific mathematical calculations. The closest example to may be found in claim 2 in Example 47 of the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, where training in combination with limitations that were taken as mental processes were found as similarly as considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis.
2nd ARGUMENT:
Additionally, the claims are directed to a practical application. More specifically, the claims are generally directed to the practical application of generating a data center asset part configuration for a data center of the data center customer using a configuration model.
As per MPEP 2106.04(D)(I), “[g]enerally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use,” does not constitute integration of a judicial exception into a practical application. To continue with claim 2, Example 47, the claim does not impose any limits on how the data is output or require any particular components that are used to output.
3rd ARGUMENT:
Additionally, it is respectfully submitted that the invention as claimed could not practically be performed within a human mind. For example, the element of establishing a secure communication channel between a data center asset and a data center monitoring and management console, the data center monitoring and management consoler including a configuration system, the data center asset being contained within a data center of a data center customer, could not practically be performed within a human mind.
As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)(C), claims can recite mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. Examiner maintains establishing a secure communication channel between a data center asset and a data center monitoring and management console is generic and do not meaningfully limit the claim because they cover using an internet connection to perform routine data collection and administration. As per MPEP 2106.06(f)(1), “ remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information” constitutes additional elements that are mere instructions to apply as an exception.
4th ARGUMENT:
Additionally, it is respectfully submitted that the claims address technical improvements by improving how a system (i.e., the data center monitoring and management console) operates and how the system moves data. Specifically, at a minimum, the claimed elements of training a configuration model based upon the plurality of data center asset features associated with the data center asset parts, the configuration model executing on the configuration system of the data center monitoring and management console, applying a configuration model to the plurality of data center asset features, the configuration model generating a data center asset part distribution of the data center asset parts and generating a data center asset part configuration for the data center of the data center customer using the configuration model improve how a system operates and how the system moves data.
The claim does not recite the alleged improvement because the claim only says generating a data center asset part configuration which corresponds to an output. The improvements disclosed in [0026] of the Specification for example do not follow from generating a data center asset part configuration per se. The disclosed improvements are not tied to specific claim limitation and follow from the mental process of monitoring and managing and mathematical process of training using computer recited at a high level of generality.
5th ARGUMENT:
It is respectfully submitted that the configuration model as disclosed and claimed is patentably distinct from the performance modeling results disclosed by Singh and the monitoring resource utilization which includes monitoring resources in a particular area disclosed by Gussin. Specifically, it is respectfully submitted that a disclosure of monitoring resources in a particular area is not sufficient to disclose a distribution of usage of the data center asset parts where the usage of the plurality of data center asset features represents an intensity of usage of each of the data center asset parts, much less where the distribution of usage of the data center asset parts are divided into a plurality of usage distribution mapping areas.
Singh discloses the data center collects performance metrics and other related data center asset features and feeding them into a capacity modeling service (see Singh FIG 4: 424). Singh discloses the capacity modeling service uses data center asset features associated with the data center asset parts to the extent the performance metrics are based on the plurality of data center asset features associated with the data center asset parts (see Singh COL 57 LINES 45-55: “For example, the storage system sizing service (404) may determine, based upon one or more storage system configurations (568) and upon the one or more storage system metrics (424), a growth model for a particular type of dataset or workload to be stored”).
6th ARGUMENT:
Specifically, it is respectfully submitted that nowhere within Singh, taken alone or in combination is there any disclosure or suggestion of the predictive machine learning model generates a probabilistic distribution of usage of the data center asset features, the probabilistic distribution being plotted as time versus intensity of usage, estimating a median usage percentage using a quantile regression model and the generating the data center asset part configuration is based upon the probabilistic distribution of usage of the data center asset features and the median usage percentage, as required by claims 4, 10 and 16.
Examiner notes Ouellet is relied upon to teach the argued subject matter. Plotting time versus intensity of usage and estimating a median usage further suggests a mental process.
CONCLUSION
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.
DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCES
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALPIT PARIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-1173. The examiner can normally be reached MON THROUGH FRI 9:30 TO 6:00.
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, Arpan Savla can be reached on 571-272-1077. 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.
/KALPIT PARIKH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137
KALPIT . PARIKH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2137