Non-Final Rejection
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 .
This action is Non-Final
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Claims 1-9 and 11-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claims 1-9 and 11-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)
Claim 10 has been cancelled by Applicant
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on September 24th, 2025, has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “said determining,” but Claim 12, upon which Claim 16 depends, has two separate steps of determining. It is unclear which determining step is being referred to in Claim 16. Examiner recommends amending Claim 16 to resemble Claim 7, which clearly references one of the two steps. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 and 11-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims generally link abstract ideas to a generic computer and perform mere data gathering in relation to the mental processes. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they include mere instructions to perform mental processes on a generic computer.
Applicant states that the invention aims to automate and speed up mental processes previous done by humans (Paragraphs 0026-0027 and 0003-0004). The rule set is merely claimed as machine learning, and the solution to the detected risk is also not claimed. Claims 6 and 15 list a myriad of problems the invention can solve that are broadly related to the field of computing. A specific solution to a specific problem is never claimed, and the invention is using generic computer algorithms to create a mere idea of a solution.
Claim 1
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
Claim 1 recites:
determine existence of a risk to which the data storage system is exposed by evaluating conditions associated with a set of one or more rules (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” are mental processes) …
identify existence of (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations,” are mental processes) …
determine whether the remediation is to be automatically performed based on configured preferences relating to a desired type of remediation or based on one or more historical interactions with an administrative user of the data storage system in which the administrative user has previously dismissed or approved previously identified remediations for one or more risks of a similar nature to the risk (a judgment based off of previous human opinions or judgment is a mental process with respect to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A));
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
Claim 1 recites:
A non-transitory machine readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by one or more processing resource of a data storage system, cause the data storage system to (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “using a computer in its ordinary capacity … e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data … does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”; MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application):
… that are indicative of a root cause of the risk, wherein the set of one or more rules are part of a rule set that is derived at least in part based on community wisdom applicable to the data storage system (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity);
… a remediation associated with the risk that addresses or mitigates the risk (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity);
and execute one or more remediation actions that implement the remediation (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application).
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
The additional elements of the claim do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The claims simply state mental processes with mere instructions to perform these abstract ideas on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)(3)). The computer is cited at such a high level of generality that it cannot be determined to be a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)) and is simply linking the judicial exception to a particular technology (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim recites only the idea of a solution, but fails to recite details as to how the solution to the problem is accomplished, because it leaves a majority of the analysis to the generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites:
wherein the instructions further cause the data storage system to receive (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “using a computer in its ordinary capacity … e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data … does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”) an update or an addition to the rule set out-of-cycle with a release schedule for software of the data storage system (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity).
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites:
wherein the rule set is derived at least in part based on telemetry data periodically received by a vendor of the data storage system from a same or similar data storage system of the vendor that is utilized by a community of users (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity).
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites:
wherein the instructions further cause the data storage system to receive (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “using a computer in its ordinary capacity … e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data … does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”) an update to a remediation set of which the remediation is a part out-of-cycle with a release schedule for software of the data storage system (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity).
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites:
wherein the remediation set is derived at least in part based on telemetry data periodically received by a vendor of the data storage system from data storage systems of the vendor of a same or similar class and type of the data storage system that are utilized by a community of users (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity).
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites:
wherein the risk represents a misconfiguration of the data storage system, an issue associated with an environment in which the data storage system operates that might impact the data storage system, a security issue relating to the data storage system, a performance issue relating to the data storage system, a compliance issue relating to the data storage system, or a capacity issue relating to the data storage system (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity; MPEP 2106.05(h), specifying a field of use or technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites:
wherein determining the existence of the risk is performed after an occurrence (determining a risk exists after something has occurred further clarifies that this step is a mental process of a judgment based off of an observation, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)) within the data storage system of an event of a predefined or configurable set of event management system (EMS) events (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity).
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites:
wherein the instructions further cause the data storage system to maintain a mapping of each event of the predefined or configurable set of EMS events to a corresponding set of one or more rules of the rule set to be evaluated (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “using a computer in its ordinary capacity … e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data … does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”; MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity; MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application; MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “judgments and opinions,” in this case, of how to organize data, are mental processes).
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites:
wherein determining the existence of the risk is performed in accordance with a predefined or configurable schedule (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application).
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites:
wherein the instructions further cause the data storage system to after determining the remediation is to be automatically performed, perform execution of the one or more remediation actions without requiring receipt of explicit authorization to perform the remediation from the administrative user (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application).
Claim 21
Claim 21 recites:
wherein a given rule of the set of one or more rules comprises a file including code, which when executed (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application) performs evaluation of conditions associated with the given rule (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “evaluations,” are mental processes; MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(2), performing a mental process in a computer environment is still an abstract idea).
Claim 22
Claim 22 recites:
wherein the rule set is delivered to the data storage system in a form of a machine-learning model (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application).
Claim 12
All limitations of Claim 12 have been analyzed above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites:
further comprising receiving (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “using a computer in its ordinary capacity … e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data … does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”) an update or an addition to one or both of the rule set and a remediation set of which the remediation is a part out-of-cycle with a release schedule for software of the data storage system (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity).
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites:
wherein one or both of the rule set and the remediation set are derived at least in part based on telemetry data periodically received by a vendor of the data storage system from a same or similar data storage system of the vendor that is utilized by a community of users (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity).
Claim 15
All limitations of Claim 15 have been addressed in the analysis of Claim 6, respectively. Please see the above rejection for further details.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites:
wherein said determining is performed after an occurrence (determining based off something that has occurred is considered, “observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)) within the data storage system of an event of a predefined or configurable set of event management system (EMS) events (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity).
Claims 17 and 23-24
All limitations of Claims 17 and 23-24 have been addressed in the analyses of Claims 11 and 21-22, respectively. Please see the above rejections for further details.
Claim 18
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
All limitations of Claim 18 identified as abstract ideas have been analyzed in the above rejection of Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
Claim 18 recites:
A data storage system comprising:
one or more processing resources (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application);
and instructions that when executed by the one or more processing resources cause the data storage system to (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application):
Please see the above rejection of Claim 1 for the remaining limitations of Claim 18 identified as additional elements.
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
Please see the above analysis of Claim 1.
Claims 19-20 and 25-28
All limitations of Claims 19-20 and 25-28 have been addressed in the analyses of Claims 13-14, 21-22, and 7-8, respectively. Please see the above rejections for further details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dickgiesser et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0198877 A1), hereinafter referred to as Dickgiesser.
With regards to Claim 1, Dickgiesser teaches:
A non-transitory machine readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by one or more processing resource of a data storage system, cause the data storage system to (Paragraphs 0106, 0114-0116, and 0026):
determine existence of a risk to which the data storage system is exposed by evaluating conditions associated with a set of one or more rules that are indicative of a root cause of the risk, wherein the set of one or more rules are part of a rule set that is derived at least in part based on community wisdom applicable to the data storage system (Paragraphs 0053, 0021, and 0089-0090);
identify existence of a remediation associated with the risk that addresses or mitigates the risk (Paragraphs 0088, 0092, and 0097);
determine whether the remediation is to be automatically performed based on configured preferences relating to a desired type of remediation or based on one or more historical interactions with an administrative user of the data storage system in which the administrative user has previously dismissed or approved previously identified remediations for one or more risks of a similar nature to the risk (Paragraphs 0039-0040, 0032, 0097, 0092, and 0082);
and execute one or more remediation actions that implement the remediation (Paragraphs 0082 and 0092).
With regards to Claim 2, Dickgiesser teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as cited above. Dickgiesser further teaches:
wherein the instructions further cause the data storage system to receive an update or an addition to the rule set out-of-cycle with a release schedule for software of the data storage system (Paragraphs 0096-0097; Paragraph 0026, unexpected degradations).
With regards to Claim 3, Dickgiesser teaches the apparatus of Claim 2 as cited above. Dickgiesser further teaches:
wherein the rule set is derived at least in part based on telemetry data periodically received by a vendor of the data storage system from a same or similar data storage system of the vendor that is utilized by a community of users (Paragraph 0035; Paragraph 0113, user software can be from a same or different vendor from the vendor of the storage itself).
With regards to Claim 4, Dickgiesser teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as cited above. Dickgiesser further teaches:
wherein the instructions further cause the data storage system to receive an update to a remediation set of which the remediation is a part out-of-cycle with a release schedule for software of the data storage system (Paragraphs 0096-0097; Paragraph 0026, unexpected degradations; Paragraph 0088).
With regards to Claim 5, Dickgiesser teaches the apparatus of Claim 4 as cited above. Dickgiesser further teaches:
wherein the remediation set is derived at least in part based on telemetry data periodically received by a vendor of the data storage system from data storage systems of the vendor of a same or similar class and type of the data storage system that are utilized by a community of users (Paragraph 0035-0036; Paragraph 0113, user software can be from a same or different vendor from the vendor of the storage itself; Paragraph 0040; Paragraphs 0085-0086).
With regards to Claim 6, Dickgiesser teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as cited above. Dickgiesser further teaches:
wherein the risk represents a misconfiguration of the data storage system, an issue associated with an environment in which the data storage system operates that might impact the data storage system, a security issue relating to the data storage system, a performance issue relating to the data storage system, a compliance issue relating to the data storage system, or a capacity issue relating to the data storage system (Paragraph 0021).
With regards to Claim 7, Dickgiesser teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as cited above. Dickgiesser further teaches:
wherein determining the existence of the risk is performed after an occurrence within the data storage system of an event of a predefined or configurable set of event management system (EMS) events (Paragraph 0089, various historical events, defined in training data, that may be used to determine existence of a risk; Paragraph 0097).
With regards to Claim 8, Dickgiesser teaches the apparatus of Claim 7 as cited above. Dickgiesser further teaches:
wherein the instructions further cause the data storage system to maintain a mapping of each event of the predefined or configurable set of EMS events to a corresponding set of one or more rules of the rule set to be evaluated (Paragraphs 0092-0093 and 0088-0089).
With regards to Claim 9, Dickgiesser teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as cited above. Dickgiesser further teaches:
wherein determining the existence of the risk is performed in accordance with a predefined or configurable schedule (Paragraphs 0048, 0075, 0086, and 0088).
With regards to Claim 11, Dickgiesser teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as cited above. Dickgiesser further teaches:
wherein the instructions further cause the data storage system to after determining the remediation is to be automatically performed, perform execution of the one or more remediation actions without requiring receipt of explicit authorization to perform the remediation from the administrative user (Paragraphs 0082 and 0092).
With regards to Claim 21, Dickgiesser teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as cited above. Dickgiesser further teaches:
wherein a given rule of the set of one or more rules comprises a file including code, which when executed performs evaluation of conditions associated with the given rule (Paragraphs 0114, 0036, and 0053).
With regards to Claim 22, Dickgiesser teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as cited above. Dickgiesser further teaches:
wherein the rule set is delivered to the data storage system in a form of a machine-learning model (Paragraphs 0036 and 0053).
With regards to Claim 12, Dickgiesser teaches all limitations of Claim 12. Please see the above rejection of Claim 1 for citations of these limitations.
With regards to Claim 13, Dickgiesser teaches the method of Claim 12 as cited above. Dickgiesser further teaches:
further comprising receiving an update or an addition to one or both of the rule set and a remediation set of which the remediation is a part out-of-cycle with a release schedule for software of the data storage system (Paragraphs 0096-0097; Paragraph 0026, unexpected degradations; Paragraph 0088).
With regards to Claim 14, Dickgiesser teaches the method of Claim 13 as cited above. Dickgiesser further teaches:
wherein one or both of the rule set and the remediation set are derived at least in part based on telemetry data periodically received by a vendor of the data storage system from a same or similar data storage system of the vendor that is utilized by a community of users (Paragraph 0035-0036; Paragraph 0113, user software can be from a same or different vendor from the vendor of the storage itself; Paragraph 0040; Paragraphs 0085-0086).
With regards to Claim 15, Dickgiesser teaches the method of Claim 12 as referenced above. Dickgiesser further teaches the limitations of Claim 15. Please see the above rejection of Claim 6 for citations of these limitations.
With regards to Claim 16, Dickgiesser teaches the method of Claim 12 as cited above. Dickgiesser further teaches:
wherein said determining is performed after an occurrence within the data storage system of an event of a predefined or configurable set of event management system (EMS) events (Paragraph 0089, various historical events, defined in training data, that may be used to determine existence of a risk; Paragraph 0097).
With regards to Claims 17 and 23-24, Dickgiesser teaches the method of Claim 12 as referenced above. Dickgiesser further teaches the limitations of Claims 17 and 23-24. Please see the above rejections of Claims 11 and 21-22, respectively, for citations of these limitations.
With regards to Claim 18, Dickgiesser teaches:
A data storage system comprising (Fig. 10):
one or more processing resources (Paragraphs 0114-0116);
and instructions that when executed by the one or more processing resources cause the data storage system to (Paragraphs 0114-0116):
Dickgiesser further teaches the remaining limitations of Claim 18. Please see the above rejection of Claim 1 for the remaining limitations of Claim 18.
With regards to Claims 19-20 and 25-28, Dickgiesser teaches the system of Claim 18 as referenced above. Dickgiesser further teaches the limitations of Claims 19-20 and 25-28. Please see the above rejections of Claims 13-14, 21-22, and 7-8, respectively, for citations of these limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims, filed on September 24th, 2025, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Moyal et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0248569 A1): teaches classifying tickets with machine learning and approving solutions
Ramachandran et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0241132 A1): teaches monitoring telemetry data and approving remediations for errors
Marimuthu (U.S. Patent No. 9,189,317 B1): teaches identifying root causes and solutions in software products
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIELLA SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3117. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-3PM EST.
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.
/G.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2113 /BRYCE P BONZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights