CTNF 18/307,582 CTNF 91044 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation The applicant has defined “computer readable storage medium” in ¶45 to NOT include transitory signals. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. 07-05 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because: 07-05-02 AIA the claimed invention lacks patentable utility. The claims are directed to gathering information to simply “indicate” a preferred or non-preferred path. This indication however is never used, and there isn’t any utility is making a decision and then not following through. The claims should be amended to include the actual utility of determining this setting . the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “indicating”, first/second paths as “preferred” or “non-preferred”. Having or picking a preference for something is purely an abstract idea, regardless of the information available that was used to determine said preference. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the indicated preference is not then integrated into the claimed system such that the system actively uses such preference to alter/improve the performance of the system. The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all of the steps of gathering information and making determinations are merely insignificant extra-solution activity. (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Simply collecting specific information, and performing analysis on it has been determined by the courts as being insignificant extra-solution activity (see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Furthermore, the information being gathered is well known information in this art, such as energy usage and source (i.e. renewable, battery, etc… along with associated cost of said energy), cooling availability, and latency . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundararajan (US 2023/0136839) in view of Allen (US 2024/0354286) and Official Notice . In regards to claims 1-20 , Sundararajan teaches In ¶256 that storage operations can intelligently be routed over different types of network paths, and that the selection of which path to use (i.e. set as preferred or non-preferred) can be based off the existence of certain conditions/criteria. Example criteria listed pertain to relative speed (i.e. latency) and efficiency (i.e. energy usage). Allen teaches in ¶34 that the selection of storage tier (i.e. selecting which location to store data) can further be based on physical storage criteria (types of storage facilities and media), logical storage criteria (storage costs, storage/retrieval performance, redundancy, compression, along with Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) or other factors, and gives as an example prioritizing storage at a facility that utilizes renewable energy sources. The examiner takes Official Notice (ON) on the other claimed factors that may not be covered by Sundararajan and Allen, such as available cooling capacity, peak and non-peak usage hours/time/days, identifying if stored data is critical/non-critical. None of the art explicitly teaches the exact wording of the claimed invention, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sundararajan, Allen, and ON such that one could have chosen a preferred path (storage location) over another (non-preferred) based on specific sets of data gathered about the storage systems. One of ordinary skill would have been able to accomplish this combination with a high degree of predictability and certainty to yield predictable results (i.e. it’s essentially a bunch of comparison statements based on the collected data). The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions. As such the claimed subject matter is considered obvious. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON W BLUST whose telephone number is (571)272-6302. The examiner can normally be reached 12-8:30 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, Hosain Alam can be reached at (571) 272-3978. 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. /JASON W BLUST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132 Application/Control Number: 18/307,582 Page 2 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 18/307,582 Page 3 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 18/307,582 Page 4 Art Unit: 2132
Prosecution Insights