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 .
Detail Information
On 03/19/2026, an amendment was filed in application 18/078,605. Claims 1, 3, 5-17, and 19 are pending, claims 1, 11, and 17 have been amended.
This is a Non-Final Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC § 101
Applicant argued that the amended claim limitation “monitor[]… a measure of processing load by detecting an counting discrete network requests received over a network, identify[]… a client of the plurality of client computers based on the discrete network requests, compar[e]… based on the measure of processing load, a current processing load for the identified client to a processing load quota for the client” are not mental process that can be performed in the hum mind, or by a human using pen and paper because it provide a specific technical solution designed to enhance the operational efficiency and traffic control a data storage system.
Examiner disagrees.
Courts have found following to be examples that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observation, evaluation, judgments and opinions MPEP 2106.4(a)(2):
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, 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 and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
Here, the amended claims limitation is simply collecting and comparing information:
“monitor[]… a measure of processing load by detecting an counting discrete network requests received over a network, identify[]… a client of the plurality of client computers based on the discrete network requests, compar[e]… based on the measure of processing load, a current processing load for the identified client to a processing load quota for the client…”
Although applicant argued that a human mind cannot processing IOPS at 100-millisecond intervals, Courts have found that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) IIIC1
35 USC § 103
Applicant argued that the combination of Wright and More fails to ”when the current processing load for the client exceeds the processing load quota for client, and when a current total processing load is below a total processing load threshold,
i) routing, by the traffic controller, a first portion of the requests of the identified client to a second subset of the plurality of submission queues, wherein each submission queue in the second subset has a submission priority lower than the submission priorities in the first subset, and
ii) routing, by the traffic controller, a second portion of the requests to at least one extra submission queue implemented as dedicated physical resource within the storage device and having a fixed submission priority lower than the submission priorities in the second subset, wherein the storage device fulfills request from the at last one extra submission queue at a predetermined priority and prioritizes fulfillment of requests from the first and second subset.”
Examiner disagrees.
The combination of Wright and More teaches these limitations. Wright teaches assigning Client’s request priority factor based on System’s load and Client’s performance factor. (see Wright teaches the target performance manager 402 can determine that the system is overloaded when the cluster's write latency is overloaded. The read/write IOPS ratio for a client can be used to determine if a particular client is having a greater impact on the overload condition. Continuing this example, a client whose read/write IOPS ratio was such that the client was doing three times more writes than reads and was doing 1,500 writes would be determined to be negatively impacting the performance of the cluster. Accordingly, the target performance manager 402 could significantly throttle this client. In one implementation, this feature can be done by calculating a factor based upon the read/write IOPS ratio. This factor could be applied when calculating the target performance value, such that the example client above would be throttled more than a client whose read/write IOPS ratio was high. In this example, a high read/write IOPS ratio indicates that the client is doing more reads than writes. The factor can also be based upon the number of IOPS that each client is doing. See Wright p0140); and
More teaches adjust priority between two query list based on whether limit is exceeded. see More c7:1-c8:50;
Furthermore, More teaches disk drives have been known to employ two separate queues in order to improve the access time experienced by high-priority requests when an optimizing scheduler is employed to improve overall throughput. The optimizing scheduler looks at requests in the high priority queue and schedules the most appropriate storage request from that queue. If the high priority queue is empty, then it schedules the most appropriate storage request from the low priority queue. Such a configuration is effective in servicing storage requests from the high priority queue ahead of the storage requests in low priority queue. See More c1:45-60.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include More’s teaching with method of Wright’s method in order to allow user prioritize order based on usage. See More c1:45-60.
Therefore, Wright and More teach these limitations.
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, 3, 5-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract concept without significantly more.
Claim 1:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 1 recites the step of:
Comparing, by the traffic controller based on the measure of processing load, a current processing load for the identified client to a processing load quota for the client;
when the current processing load for the client is less than or equal to the processing load quota for the client…
when the current processing load for the client exceeds the processing load quota for the client, and when a current total processing load is below a total processing load threshold, …
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites mere instructions to apply an exception (A method of processing requests sent by a plurality of client computers, to a shared storage device having a processing load capacity, the method comprising), with additional elements comprising only insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 1 recites the additional element of:
routing, by the traffic controller, a first portion of the requests of the identified client to a second subset of the plurality of submission queues, wherein each submission queue in the second subset has a submission priority lower than the submission priorities in the first subset, and
ii) directing a second portion of the requests to at least one extra submission queue having a submission priority lower than the submission priorities in the second subset.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Further, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 3:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 3 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 3 recites the additional element of:
when the sum of the measures of loads for all of the client computers exceeds a total load threshold, throttling requests from the client computers.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 3 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 5:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 5 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 5 recites the additional element of:
wherein assigning submission priorities to requests includes directing requests to the submission queues.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 5 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 6:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 6 is dependent on claims 1 and 5, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1 and 5.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 6, 5 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 6 recites the additional element of:
wherein each submission queue has a weighted round robin coefficient, the method including taking requests from the submission queues for fulfillment using a cyclic weighted round robin process, such that a number of submission requests taken form fulfillment during each cycle of the process is directly related to the weighted round robin coefficient of that submission queue.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 6 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 1, and 5, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 7:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 7 is dependent on claims 1 and 5, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1 and 5.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 7, 5 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 7 recites the additional element of:
wherein the same set of submission queues is used in the original priority assignment scheme and in the modified priority assignment scheme, the method including changing the submission priority for at least one of the submission queues to change from the original assignment scheme to a modified assignment scheme.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 7 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 1, and 5, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 8:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 8 is dependent on claims 1 and 5, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1 and 5.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 8, 5 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 8 recites the additional element of:
wherein each client computer sends requests to one or more client queues associated with that client computer, and directing requests to the submission queues includes directing requests from each client queue to a corresponding one of the submission queues.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 8 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 1, and 5, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 9:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 9 is dependent on claims 1, 5, and 8 and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1, 5, and 8.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 9, 8, 5 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 9 recites the additional element of:
wherein the fulfilling comprises directing completion commands from the storage device into a set of completion queues so that a completion command generated upon fulfillment of a request taken from a given submission queue is directed into a completion queue corresponding to that submission queue, whereby the completion command for a request from a given input queue will be directed into a completion queue corresponding to that input queue.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 9 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 1, 5, and 8 the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 10:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 10 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 10 recites the additional element of:
wherein the requests are input/output (IO) requests.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 10 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claims 11-16 are directed to a computer system, comprise the steps which the at least one processing platform of the method of claims 1-6 are configured to perform. Claims 11-16 recite the same limitations as claims 1-6; therefore, claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a system process without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1-6. See above.
Claims 17 and 19 are directed to a computer system, comprise the steps which the at least one processing platform of the method of claims 1 and 3 are configured to perform. Claims 17 and 19 recite the same limitations as claims 1 and 3; therefore, claims 17and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a system process without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1 and 3. See 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-12, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright US 2013/0232261 in view of More US 7,281,086.
18/078,605
Wright US 2013/0232261 in view of More US 7,281,086.
Claim 1
A method of processing requests sent by a plurality of client computers, to a shared device, the shared storage device comprising a plurality of submission queues each having submission priority, the method comprising:
Wright Fig. 6, p0142-p0150; Fig. 15, p0273; p0268-p0277
Monitoring, by a traffic controller, a measure of processing load by detecting and counting discrete network request received over a network from each client computer;
Wright teaches Service rate associated with client ID see Wright, p0143, p0256; Fig. 12, p0018, p0226;
Wright teaches monitor and determine new Implement Qos and Management Policy. (see Wright Fig. 15, p0273; p0268-p0277);
Identifying, by the traffic controller, a client of plurality of client computers, based on the discrete network request;
Wright Fig. 6, p0142-p0150; Fig. 15, p0273; p0268-p0277
Comparing, by the traffic controller based on the measure of processing load, a current processing load for the identified client to a processing load quota for the client;
Wright Fig. 6, p0142-p0150; Fig. 15, p0273; p0268-p0277
when the current processing load for the client is less than or equal to the processing load quota for the client, routing, by a traffic controller, requests of the identified client to a first subset of the plurality of submission queues, and assigning submission priorities to the requests;
when the current processing load for the client exceeds the processing load quota for the client, and when a current total processing load is below a total processing load threshold,
i) routing, by the traffic controller, a first portion of the requests of the identified client to a second subset of the plurality of submission queues, wherein each submission queue in the second subset has a submission priority lower than the submission priorities in the first subset, and
ii) routing, by the traffic controller, a second portion of the requests to at least one extra submission queue implemented as dedicated physical resource within the storage device and having a fixed submission priority lower than the submission priorities in the second subset, wherein the storage device fulfills request from the at last one extra submission queue at a predetermined priority and prioritizes fulfillment of requests from the first and second subset.
Wright Fig. 6, p0142-p0150; Fig. 15, p0273; p0268-p0277
More teaches adjust priority between two query list based on whether limit is exceeded. see More c7:1-c8:50;
Wright teaches queuing up client request; see Wright p0064, p0089, p0186, and p0204-p0205;
More teaches disk drives have been known to employ two separate queues in order to improve the access time experienced by high-priority requests when an optimizing scheduler is employed to improve overall throughput. The optimizing scheduler looks at requests in the high priority queue and schedules the most appropriate storage request from that queue. If the high priority queue is empty, then it schedules the most appropriate storage request from the low priority queue. Such a configuration is effective in servicing storage requests from the high priority queue ahead of the storage requests in low priority queue. See More c1:45-60.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include More’s teaching with method of Wright’s method in order to allow user prioritize order based on usage. See More c1:45-60.
Claim 3
The method of claim 1, comprising, when the sum of the measures of loads for all of the client computers exceeds a total load threshold, throttling requests from the client computers.
Wright teaches Service rate associated with client ID see Wright, p0143, p0256; Fig. 12, p0018, p0226;
More teaches adjust priority based on whether limit is exceeded. see More c7:1-c8:50; it is noted that if all loads are adjusted lower, the first set would have highest priority again.
Claim 5
The method of claim 1, wherein assigning submission priorities to requests includes directing requests to the submission queues.
Wright teaches Service rate associated with client ID see Wright, p0143, p0256; Fig. 12, p0018, p0226;
More teaches adjust priority based on whether limit is exceeded. see More c7:1-c8:50;
Claim 7
The method of claim 5, comprising changing the submission priority for at least one of the submission queues.
Wright teaches Service rate associated with client ID see Wright, p0143, p0256; Fig. 12, p0018, p0226;
More teaches adjust priority based on whether limit is exceeded. see More c7:1-c8:50;
Claim 8
The method of claim 5, wherein each client computer sends requests to one or more client queues associated with that client computer, and directing requests to the submission queues includes directing requests from each client queue to a corresponding one of the submission queues.
Wright teaches Service rate associated with client ID see Wright, p0143, p0256; Fig. 12, p0018, p0226;
Claim 9
The method of claim 8, wherein the fulfilling comprises directing completion commands from the storage device into a set of completion queues so that a completion command generated upon fulfillment of a request taken from a given submission queue is directed into a completion queue corresponding to that submission queue, whereby the completion command for a request from a given input queue will be directed into a completion queue corresponding to that input queue.
Wright teaches queue access. See Wright p0064;
Wright teaches monitoring the queue. See Wright p0186-p0188;
Wright teaches determine time for system to complete a data operation. (see Wright p0183-p0184);
Claim 10
The method of claim 1, wherein the requests are input/output (IO) requests.
Wright p0056, Fig. 15, p0273; p0268-p0277;
As per claim 11, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. See rejection above.
18/078,605
Wright US 2013/0232261 More US 7,281,086;
Claim 12
The computer system of claim 11, further comprising a sampler configured to take requests for fulfillment by the storage device from each queue at a rate directly related to the submission priority associated with that queue, the traffic controller being operative to assign submission priorities to the requests by directing the requests to the submission queue.
Wright teaches Service rate associated with client ID see Wright, p0143, p0256; Fig. 12, p0018, p0226;
Claim 14
The computer system of claim 12, wherein the traffic controller is operative to change the submission priority associated with at least one of the submission queues.
Wright teaches Service rate associated with client ID see Wright, p0143, p0256; Fig. 12, p0018, p0226;
More teaches adjust priority based on whether limit is exceeded. see More c7:1-c8:50;
As per claims 15 and 16, it is rejected under the same rationale as claims 4 and 3 respectively. See rejections above.
As per claims 17-20, they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1, 2, 4 and 3 respectively. See rejections above.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright US 2013/0232261 in view of More US 7,281,086 and Song US 2022/0104213.
18/078,605
Wright US 2013/0232261in view of More US 7,281,086 and Song US 2022/0104213;
Claim 6
The method of claim 5, wherein each submission queue has a weighted round robin coefficient, the method including taking requests from the submission queues for fulfillment using a cyclic weighted round robin process, such that a number of submission requests taken form fulfillment during each cycle of the process is directly related to the weighted round robin coefficient of that submission queue.
Wright teaches queue access. See Wright p0064;
Wright teaches monitoring the queue. See Wright p0186-p0188;
Song teaches a round robin coefficient. (see Song p0050-p0053)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Song’s teaching with method of Wright’s method in order to various processing circuitry and executable program elements and set the priorities in the queue.
As per claim 13, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6. See rejection above.
Related Prior Art
Here is a list of references relates priority Queue Management:
Horn US 2005/0066138: Multiple Storage Element Command Queues.
Lei US 2021/0019188: Method, Electronic device and computer program product for
load balance.
Rajadeva et al. US 2023/0102654: Relative Displaceable Capacity Integration.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENG KE whose telephone number is (571)272-4062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-5:00.
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, Kevin Young can be reached at (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 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.
PENG KE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/PENG KE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
1 The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699
Prosecution Insights