DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office action in response to communications received 12/21/2025. Claims 4 and 11 have been canceled. Claims 21 and 22 have been added. Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 12-15, and 19 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-22 are pending and addressed below.
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 1-3, 5-10, and 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 recite(s) the limitation(s) of “identifying, by a storage system, a root cause of an anomaly predicted at a component external to the storage system that affects a performance of the storage system, wherein the component includes a network link between the storage system and an external execution environment” in claim 1 and
“identify, by a storage system, a root cause of an anomaly predicted at a component external to the storage system that affects a performance of the storage system, wherein the component includes a network link between the storage system and an external execution environment” in claims 8 and 15.
This/These limitation(s), as drafted, is(are) a process (processes) that, under its (their) broadest reasonable interpretation, cover(s) performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a storage system”, “a component external to the storage system”, “a network link”, and “a processing device” in claim 1, “a memory”, “a processing device”, “a storage system”, “a component external to the storage system”, and “a network link” in claim 8, and “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “a processing device”, “a storage system”, “a component external to the storage system”, and “a network link” in claim 15, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic processing components does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental processes grouping.
The examiner notes that “identifying, by a storage system, a root cause of an anomaly predicted at a component external to the storage system that affects a performance of the storage system, wherein the component includes a network link between the storage system and an external execution environment” involves subjective choices as to the determination of the factors and weights used in the prediction of the anomaly, the factors and basis for what is “performance”, and the levels, types, and range of “performance” and includes the concepts of evaluation, judgment, and opinion in claim 1 and
“identify, by a storage system, a root cause of an anomaly predicted at a component external to the storage system that affects a performance of the storage system, wherein the component includes a network link between the storage system and an external execution environment” involves subjective choices as to the determination of the factors and weights used in the prediction of the anomaly, the factors and basis for what is “performance”, and the levels, types, and range of “performance” and includes the concepts of evaluation, judgment, and opinion in claims 8 and 15. Thus, the claim(s) recite(s) a mental process, concepts that may be performed in the human mind, in this case being observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited including “transmitting, by a processing device, an indication to initiate a remedial action associated with the root cause, wherein the remedial action comprises reconfiguring the component based on the root cause, wherein the remedial action comprises causing the external execution environment to redirect execution of operations to a different storage system” in claim 1 and “transmit an indication to initiate a remedial action associated with the root cause, where the remedial action comprises reconfiguring the component based on the root cause, wherein the remedial action comprises at least causing the external execution environment to redirect execution of operations to a different storage system” in claims 8 and 15 are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processor performing a generic computer function, in this case the transmission of data and the reconfiguring of a component. Generic processor limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The examiner notes that while “transmitting, by a processing device, an indication to initiate a remedial action associated with the root cause, wherein the remedial action comprises reconfiguring the component based on the root cause, wherein the remedial action comprises at least causing the external execution environment to redirect execution of operations to a different storage system” could possibly improve the functioning of a computer, it is not a particular solution to a specific problem (An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, see MPEP 2106.05(a), The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it", see MPEP 2106.05(f)), but instead a generic solution to any general problem. In this case the “transmitting” simply sends a signal to initiate the remedial action, but does not actually perform the remedial action that would cause the redirection of the execution of operations to a different storage system. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements fail to improve the functionality of the computer itself.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology or effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Furthermore, the applicant’s own specification details the generic nature of the computing components, which also precludes them from presenting anything significantly more ([0019-0039], fig. 1A, 1B).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-14, and 16-22 do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 simply migrate a workload, which could provide a solution, but is a generic operation that applies to any issue and is therefore not a particular solution to a specific problem and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 include a mental process in the subjective choice as to which performance metrics are selected and what factors each “performance” metric represent and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 simply further detail the “relationship” and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 simply further detail the component and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 simply provide a type of component metric and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 18 simply further details the component and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 include a mental process in the subjective determination of a “relationship” between subjectively chosen “metrics” and do(es) not provide a practical application and also do(es) not provide significantly more in that the computer system is not improved or even affected.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, and 12-22 is(are) therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
******************************
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument (see p. 7 of remarks) that the “limitations set forth in the independent claim language are directed toward technological improvements”, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner notes that “identifying, by the storage system, a root cause of an anomaly predicted at the component that affects a performance of the storage system” generically identifies a root cause without a particular method or set of steps. The examiner also notes that the identification is part of the mental process and not the additional elements. Additionally, after identifying the root cause the computer itself has not been improved and is in the same state as before the identification.
The examiner notes that “transmitting, by a processing device, an indication to initiate a remedial action associated with the root cause” simply transmits a signal to initiate the remedial action, but does not perform the remedial action and as such after this step the signal has been transmitted and the computer itself has not been improved or changed. While “transmitting, by a processing device, an indication to initiate a remedial action associated with the root cause, wherein the remedial action comprises reconfiguring the component based on the root cause” could possibly improve the functioning of a computer, it is not a particular solution to a specific problem (An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, see MPEP 2106.05(a), The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it", see MPEP 2106.05(f)), but instead a generic solution to any general problem. In this case the “transmitting” simply sends a signal to initiate the remedial action, but does not actually perform the “reconfiguring”, which could refer to any possible alteration to settings or physical manipulations of the component and as such is not “particular”. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements fail to improve the functionality of the computer itself.
In response to applicant’s argument (see p. 8 of remarks) that “if claim language does not recite what can be practically performed in the human mind, the claim language should not be considered a mental process”, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner notes that “a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process … examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(1)(III)(C)). In this case the mental processes are the subjective choices as to the determination of the factors and weights used in the prediction of the anomaly, the factors and basis for what is “performance”, and the levels, types, and range of “performance”, which are carried out on a generic computer. The examiner notes that the mental processes are those of the subjective choices used for the prediction and performance, not actually performing the calculations in the mind.
In response to applicant’s argument (see p. 8 of remarks) that “Applicant contends that determining a relationship between metrics of a storage system and metrics of a component cannot be considered subjective as metrics are objective observed data points”, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the premise.
The examiner notes that the relationship between metrics has been amended out of the independent claims, but has been added in claims 21 and 22. However, The examiner notes that while specific values for a metric are undeniably objective, the specific metrics, how the relationship between metrics corresponds to performance, and the weights and factors used in the computation of “performance” are all subjectively chosen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA P LOTTICH whose telephone number is (571)270-3738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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 5712723655. 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.
/JOSHUA P LOTTICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113