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 .
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites, performing phased based predictions, obtaining a sampling dataset, detecting device failure, generating failure base, training the model and deploying the updated model. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation recite an abstract idea. Specifically collecting and analyzing data related to storage device data and forming opinions and outputs from the analysis. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation this covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Metal Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Applicant’s limitation of detecting, the by one or more processors, device failure for the group of storage devices based on the sampling dataset would fall within the mathematical concepts grouping. Applicant further discloses this in ¶0013 (unsupervised algorithms can be employed to facilitate the detection). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites - obtaining, by the one or more processors, a sampling dataset by selecting a group of storage devices from the respective sampling scopes with the corresponding sampling ratio. The collecting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering network traffic data for use in the comparison step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Deploying the updated model is an insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Initiating a corrective action is a insignificant post solution activity.
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 using a processor to perform both the predicting, obtaining detecting and generating steps amounts 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-9 and 21-23, additional elements are generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea. They fail to improve the technology or require any specialized machines or components. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Claims 2-9 recite additional, specific mathematical algorithms and mental process. These claims do not recite any additional limitations that recite any specific technological improvement to the storage device or computer functionality. These are also considered abstract ideas following the same analysis as claim 1.
Claims 10-17 are the system embodiments of claims 1-9. Other than a shift in Step 1 to a system, as opposed to a method, these claims follow the same analysis and conclusion of ineligibility.
Claims 18-20 are the computer program product embodiments of claims 1-9. Other than a shift in Step 1 to an apparatus, as opposed to a method, these claims follow the same analysis and conclusion of ineligibility.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states:
The amended claim 1 recites a specific, phase-based prediction technique that cannot reasonably be performed mentally. The claimed "phase-based predictions based on real-time monitoring data" require using different anomaly prediction phases (for detecting environment, performance, and device monitoring data anomalies) to generate corresponding sampling scopes and sampling ratios, and then obtaining a sampling dataset by selecting storage devices based on those ratios. This requires processing high-volume of real-time data (such as environmental metrics, performance metrics, and device monitoring data) associated with a plurality of storage devices, something that cannot be carried out mentally.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim is still receiving data, analyzing data, using mathematical rules to make a decision. Such activities fall within the mathematical concept and mental process. Processing data in near real time does not remove the claim from the abstract idea category.
Applicant states:
Further, the amended claim requires detecting device failure(s) by applying failure prediction models trained on benchmark, historical, and manufacturer-specific data, generating a failure base, dynamically updating model(s) based on a scheduling policy, deploying updated model(s), and initiating corrective actions. These are concrete, computer-implemented operations for dynamically training the model(s) to identify device failures, none of which can be performed by a human mind.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely requiring a computer to perform operations does not render a claim non abstract. The claimed functions or phased based predictions, obtaining datasets, training and updating models on is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element amount to routine and conventional computer implementation of abstract data analysis.
Applicant state:
Accordingly, the prediction/detection results can be dynamically adjusted. Efficiency of detection can be improved, thereby facilitating cost reduction and avoiding resource wastes."
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Improvements in prediction accuracy, efficiency or cost relate to the abstract idea itself rather than to an improvement in the functioning of the computer operation.
Applicant states:
Notwithstanding the above remarks, even if amended independent claim 1 were viewed as reciting a judicial exception, the claim nonetheless recites additional elements that integrate any such alleged exception into a practical application.
Amended claim 1 describes a processor-implemented method that uses specific technical mechanisms, including performing multi-phase anomaly predictions on real-time monitoring data to generate sampling scopes and ratios, building a sampling dataset based on those ratios, detecting device failures using models, maintaining a failure base for dynamically scheduling future predictions, retraining models according to a scheduling policy, deploying updated models to detect new failures, and initiating corrective actions based on those detections.
These claimed features apply any alleged abstract idea in a technologically grounded way and provide concrete improvements in device-failure detection accuracy, performance, and cost. The amended claim further addresses real technical challenges in large-scale storage systems, such as handling large volumes of real-time monitoring data (See paragraph [0051] of as-filed specification) and improving failure detection efficiency while reducing resource usage (See paragraph [0085] of as-filed specification).
The claimed steps do not merely analyze data but also initiate corrective actions once device failures are identified using the dynamically trained models, thereby improving storage system availability and preventing data-loss events. This computer-implemented management of the operational state of storage devices constitutes a meaningful application of any alleged abstract idea and reflects a technical improvement in system operation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s limitations merely apply mathematical modeling and data analysis using generic computer components performing well know functions. The improvements in detection accuracy, efficiency and cost reduction are improvements in the abstract idea itself rather than a specific technological improvement to the storage device or computer functionality. The abstract idea is not integrated into practical application.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHARLES EHNE whose telephone number is (571)272-2471. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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.
/CHARLES EHNE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113