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 .
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of the claims regarding subject matter eligibility in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG):
Claim Interpretation of claim 1
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The claim recites one or more volumes, each associated with importance information, stored across one or more components, the importance information indicating if the volumes can be stored in the apparatus or another storage system. The plain meaning of the claim is data stored a component, the data being related in some way with information that indicates if that data can be stored on the component or on another storage system.
The recites detecting a failure of a component. The claim does not provide any details regarding the detecting. The plain meaning of detecting encompasses mental observations or evaluations.
The claim recites determining an amount of free space required to restore redundancy of data stored in the failed component. The claim does not provide any details regarding the determination. The plain meaning of determining encompasses mental observations, evaluations, or judgments.
The claim recites determining ones of the one or more volumes that can be migrated to the another storage system based on the importance information. The claim does not provide any details regarding the determination. The plain meaning of determining encompasses mental observations, evaluations, or judgments.
The claim recites determining a combination of the determined ones of the one or more volumes that satisfy the amount of free space required based on capacity information of the determined ones of the one or more volumes. The claim does not provide any details regarding the determination. The plain meaning of determining encompasses mental observations, evaluations, or judgments.
Finally, the claim recites migrating the determined ones of the one or more volumes. The claim does not provide any details regarding the migration. The plain meaning of migration encompasses transferring data over a network or transmission line.
All of the determining steps and the migrating step are recited as being performed by a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as a generic processor performing generic processing functions.
Based on the plain meaning of the words in the claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is a generic processor used to make a series of determinations regarding an amount of free space needed for redundancy restoration and which volumes of stored data can be moved to create the free space based on capacity information and importance information. After making the determinations, the data is moved.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis
Step 1: Do the Claims Specify a Statutory Category?
Claims 1-12 recite apparatuses, claim 13 recite a method and claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 1-7
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
As discussed in the claim interpretation section, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps reciting detecting and making determinations fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
As such, the limitations identified above, as currently written, describe a process which, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., use of a processor and memory). That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps of making an identification and making a determination from practically being performed in the mind (or using pen and paper).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the practical performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 2-5 recite descriptions of the particular type of information being evaluated.
Claims 6 -12 recite additional steps for making determinations. The additional determinations, similar to the determinations recited in claim 1, contain no details regarding the determination. The plain meaning of determining encompasses mental observations, evaluations, or judgments.
Claim 12 further recites an output via a generically recited interface.
The limitations in these dependent claims are directed to the identified abstract idea and, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, thereby falling within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 2-12 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. The evaluation is performed by identifying whether there are additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exception and the evaluating those elements individually and as a whole, in combination with all limitations of the claim, to determine whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites additional limitations for “one or more volumes, each of the one or more volumes associated with importance information, the one or more volumes stored across one or more components to facilitate data redundancy, the importance information indicative of whether data of the one or more volumes can be stored in the apparatus or the another storage system,” “a processor,” and “migrating the determined combination of the determined ones of the one or more volumes.”
The recitations of “one or more volumes” and “importance information” merely recite information regarding the particular source and/or type of the data to be evaluated and/or observed. These limitations for determining the particular source and/or type of the data to be evaluated and observed amount to insignificant extra-solution activity as they simply direct one as to which type of data to evaluate or observe or add insignificant detail to the evaluation or observation to perform. MPEP 2106.05(g).
The recitations of one or more components and a processor are generic recitations of generic computing elements performing generic computing functions. These additional elements thus represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The recitation of migrating the determined ones of the volumes is recited at a high level of generality. The limitation recites only the general idea of a solution and merely invokes the use of a processor to perform a mental process. The limitation amounts to a recitation of an abstract idea with a generic direction to “apply it.” See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 2 and 3 recite additional limitations regarding the particular source and/or type of the data to be evaluated and/or observed. These limitations for determining the particular and/or source of the data to be evaluated and observed amount to insignificant extra-solution activity as they simply direct one as to which type of data to evaluate or observe or add insignificant detail to the evaluation or observation to perform. MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 4 and 5 recite additional migration steps. The recitation of migrating the determined ones of the volumes is recited at a high level of generality. The limitation recites only the general idea of a solution and merely invokes the use of a processor to perform a mental process. The limitation amounts to a recitation of an abstract idea with a generic direction to “apply it.” See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 12 recites providing a suggestion. This additional element amounts to mere data gathering output necessary for all uses of the abstract idea. The additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 6-11 contain no additional elements beyond recited abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the identified 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.
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, claim 1 recites additional limitations for “one or more volumes, each of the one or more volumes associated with importance information, the one or more volumes stored across one or more components to facilitate data redundancy, the importance information indicative of whether data of the one or more volumes can be stored in the apparatus or the another storage system,” “a processor,” and “migrating the determined combination of the determined ones of the one or more volumes.”
The recitations of “one or more volumes” and “importance information” merely recite information regarding the particular source and/or type of the data to be evaluated and/or observed. These limitations for determining the particular source and/or type of the data to be evaluated and observed amount to insignificant extra-solution activity as they simply direct one as to which type of data to evaluate or observe or add insignificant detail to the evaluation or observation to perform. MPEP 2106.05(g).
The recitations of one or more components and a processor are generic recitations of generic computing elements performing generic computing functions. These additional elements thus represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The recitation of migrating the determined ones of the volumes is recited at a high level of generality. The limitation recites only the general idea of a solution and merely invokes the use of a processor to perform a mental process. The limitation amounts to a recitation of an abstract idea with a generic direction to “apply it.” See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 2 and 3 recite additional limitations regarding the particular source and/or type of the data to be evaluated and/or observed. These limitations for determining the particular and/or source of the data to be evaluated and observed amount to insignificant extra-solution activity as they simply direct one as to which type of data to evaluate or observe or add insignificant detail to the evaluation or observation to perform. MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 4 and 5 recite additional migration steps. The recitation of migrating the determined ones of the volumes is recited at a high level of generality. The limitation recites only the general idea of a solution and merely invokes the use of a processor to perform a mental process. The limitation amounts to a recitation of an abstract idea with a generic direction to “apply it.” See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 12 recites providing a suggestion. This additional element amounts to mere data gathering output necessary for all uses of the abstract idea. The additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 6-11 contain no additional elements beyond recited abstract ideas.
Accordingly, these limitations recite no additional elements that, taken individually or in combination with all elements of the claim as a whole, would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea defined in the claim.
Conclusion: In light of the above, the limitations in claims 1-12 recite and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Claims 1-12 are therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 13 and 14
The claims recite limitations which are similar to the limitations in claim 1, and are similarly directed to the same abstract idea as identified above. The Step 2 analysis for the limitations in claims 13 and 14 is similar to the analysis for claim 1.
The claims recite the additional element of a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions. There is no indication that the combination of elements solves a technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing computer technology in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s) and does not add significantly more . These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, claims 13 and 14 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleming et al. (2013/0086340) in view of Jacobson et al. (2008/0126842).
Regarding claim 1:
Fleming teaches:
An apparatus connected to another storage system comprising:
one or more volumes, each of the one or more volumes associated with importance information, the one or more volumes stored across one or more components to facilitate data redundancy, the importance information indicative of whether data of the one or more volumes can be stored in the apparatus or the another storage system [par 31, 35, 43, 56 – data are stored in volumes on devices, user performance requirements including redundancy requirements and actual performance requirements are also stored, there are multiple storage devices and systems];
a processor, configured to, for a detection of a failure of a component from the one or more components [par 63 – a failure of a disk or device is one of the possible state changes]:
determine an amount of free space required to restore redundancy from an amount of data stored in the failed component [par 45, 47, 66, 67 – determine the capacity necessary to restore the redundancy of the data from failed devices];
determine ones of the one or more volumes that can be migrated to the another storage system based on the importance information indicating that data of the determined ones of the one or more volumes can be stored in the another storage system [par 47, 67, 72, 73, 81 – volumes are migrated based on the ability to provide additional storage space that meets the performance requirements and the capacity requirements] ;
and
migrate the one or more volumes to the another storage system to restore redundancy [par 72-74, 81].
Fleming does not explicitly teach to determine a combination of the determined ones of the one or more volumes that satisfy the amount of free space required based on capacity information of the determined ones of the one or more volumes. Fleming does, however, teach consideration of capacity requirements for migrating data from failed components.
Jacobson teaches to determine a combination of the determined ones of the one or more volumes that satisfy the amount of free space required based on capacity information of the determined ones of the one or more volumes [par 104, 106, 108 – determines which segments to migrate to other bricks in order to create enough free space to recover redundancy for segments affected by failure].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the migration teachings of Jacobson with the recovery system of Fleming.
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have been motivated to make the combination because Jacobson teaches that only migrating as many segments as necessary to create free space to recovery redundancy provides for a more efficient method of recovering redundancy and avoids a great deal of data movement [par 106-107].
Regarding claim 2:
The combination teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the importance information comprises a specified service level of the each of the one or more volumes [Fleming par 43].
Regarding claim 3:
The combination teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the importance information comprises a lower limit of volume performance required for the one or more volumes [Fleming par 43].
Regarding claim 4:
The combination teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to migrate the determined combination of the determined ones of the one or more volumes to the another storage system by migrating the determined ones of the one or more volumes in its entirety [Fleming par 47, 56; Jacobson par 104 – one method of restoring redundancy is to simply migrate the entire affected volume].
Regarding claim 7:
The combination teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine the combination of the determined ones of the one or more volumes that satisfy the amount of free space required based on minimizing an amount of migrated data [Jacobson par 106-108].
Regarding claim 8:
The combination teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine the combination of the determined ones of the one or more volumes that satisfy the amount of free space required based on minimizing a number of migrated volumes [Jacobson par 106-108].
Regarding claim 9:
The combination teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine the combination of the determined ones of the one or more volumes that satisfy the amount of free space required based on minimizing an amount of migrated volumes that violate a service level specified in the importance information [Fleming par 72, 73 – the target resource is required to have the same performance level, thus the volumes that violate the service level are necessarily minimized].
Regarding claim 10:
The combination teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine the combination of the determined ones of the one or more volumes that satisfy the amount of free space required based on minimizing a number of volumes having insufficient performance according to the importance information [Fleming par 72, 73].
Regarding claim 11:
The combination teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine the combination of the determined ones of the one or more volumes that satisfy the amount of free space required based on the combination of the determined ones that maximize on-premise capacity usage [Jacobson par 104, 106-108].
Regarding claims 13 and 14:
See the teachings above with respect to claim 1. The combination further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions for performing a method [Fleming par 18].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 6 of the remarks, that “First, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1 because they provide specific technical improvements to computer storage systems. The invention implements a sophisticated storage architecture where storage pools are formed from multiple storage nodes, each node contains multiple solid state drives (SSDs), and data is stored across RAID groups with parity settings that can accept one SSD failure from among all the SSDs in the RAID group.
Storage #1 is assigned Gold and Bronze tags, with two types of volumes (Gold and Bronze) created from pool #1. Pool #1 is formed from four storage nodes, each of the nodes having two solid state drives (SSDs) and involving two RAID (redundant array of inexpensive disks) groups.
Gold and Bronze volume use the same capacity of the RAID groups. Both RAID groups are set at a parity of 1 so that they can accept one SSD failure from among all the SSDs in the RAID group. Spec., ¶ 55.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues details regarding the structure of the storage architecture and then reproduces language from the specification to allege that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. None of the features applicant relies on are recited or reflected in the claim. The actual claim language recites various mental processes as outlined in the rejection above.
Applicant argues, on pages 6-7 of the remarks , that “Second, even if considered abstract, the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2 by providing specific technical solutions to technical problems.
When an SSD fails, it degrades redundancy in the corresponding RAID group. Without spare SSDs, the RAID group cannot be recovered. If another SSD in that RAID group fails, data may be lost. As described in the specification, "SSD #4 fails, thereby degrading redundancy in the corresponding RAID group. The RAID group involving SSD #4 does not have any spare SSDs, so the RAID group cannot be recovered. Accordingly, if another SSD in that RAID group fails, gold and bronze volume will be lost." Spec., ¶ 57.
The invention solves this through an intelligent technical solution where the system determines if storage can hold capacity of higher importance volumes, lower importance volumes are migrated to make capacity available, data in higher importance volumes is merged to unaffected RAID groups, and degraded RAID groups are converted to spare volumes.
it is determined that Storage #1 can hold the capacity of the gold volume, and Storage #2 has sufficient capacity to accept a bronze volume and has sufficient capacity to host the bronze volume. In this example, the bronze volume is then subject to kick-out, meaning that the bronze volume is migrated to the cloud to make capacity available for the gold volume. After the kick-out occurs, all of the data in the gold volume is merged to the unaffected RAID group in a reallocation.
The degraded RAID group is then turned into spare volumes for the unaffected RAID group. Spec., ¶ 58. “
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues details regarding the structure of the storage architecture and then reproduces language from the specification to allege that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. None of the features applicant relies on are recited or reflected in the claim.
The claim recites making numerous determinations without any limitation on how those determinations are made. Making determinations encompasses mental observations, judgments, or evaluations. As applicant is aware, an improvement to a computer or other technology cannot come from an abstract idea itself. The improvement must come from the additional elements, either alone or in combination with the claim as a whole. In this instance the additional elements of the claim merely recite particular sources or types of data to be evaluated, generic computer elements performing generic computing functions, and instructions to apply the recited abstract idea on a computer, as outlined in the rejection above. Thus the abstract ideas recited in the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant argues, on page 7, that “Third, the claims recite significantly more under Step 2B through unconventional technical arrangements. Reallocation patterns are calculated every time storage device status changes, including addition of SSDs, addition of storage nodes, creation of volumes, and hardware failures.
When failures occur, the system automatically finds and applies pre-calculated patterns to reallocate resources. “
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues details regarding the structure of the storage architecture and then reproduces language from the specification to allege that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. None of the features applicant relies on are recited or reflected in the claim. The claim does not recite any limitations directed to calculating reallocation patters every time store device status changes.
Applicant argues, on page 7, that “Fourth, the specification provides extensive technical detail showing concrete improvements. As described in the specification, "Through the example implementations described herein, it is thereby possible to prevent service level violations that could occur with kicking volumes out to the cloud, so a more stable operation can be maintained." Spec., ¶ 89.
This is analogous to the claims found eligible in Enfish, where the court found that claims focused on "an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity" were patent eligible. Here, the claims improve the fundamental operation of computer storage systems rather than simply using computers as a tool.
The combination of these technical elements creates a storage system that may be more reliable, efficient and resilient than previous systems - representing an improvement to computer functionality itself rather than merely using computers to implement an abstract idea.“
The examiner respectfully disagrees. None of the features applicant relies on are recited or reflected in the claim. The claim does not recite or reflect any details regarding prevention of service level violations. Applicant argues that the specification provides extensive technical details showing concrete improvements. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, applicant alleges that the claims are analogous to the claims found eligible in Enfish and McRO, but does not identify any elements of the instant claims that are analogous to those found eligible in Enfish or McRO, nor provide any argumentation detailing how such an analogy is drawn.
Applicant argues, on pages 8-9, that “Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of Fleming and Jacobson fails to teach or suggest "determine a combination of the determined ones of the one or more volumes that satisfy the amount of free space required based on capacity information of the determined ones of the one or more volumes" as recited in claim 1. Fleming generally describes If the access rate of the storage device cannot meet the requirements of the user application or the provisioning system finds that other non-vital error occurs to the storage device, then the provisioning system may correct these non-vital errors through carrying out voluntary data migration. If a vital error occurs to the storage device such that the storage device completely collapses, the provisioning system will be subjected to passive restructuring. Jacobson, ¶ 162.
However, Fleming does not teach determining a specific combination of volumes to migrate based on satisfying a required free space amount.
Jacobson describes that rather than migrating all affected segments from brick 8 to other bricks within the distributed data-storage system, only a sufficient number of segments are migrated to provide sufficient free space within brick 8 to allow the remaining segments affected by the failure of mass- storage device 11 to be reconstructed, in place, within brick 8. Jacobson, ¶¶ 105-106.
Jacobson's approach is fundamentally different from the claimed invention. Jacobson focuses on freeing up space within a failed component itself, rather than determining volume combinations to migrate to another storage system as claimed.
Specifically, Jacobson describes First, in step 4002, the failure of one or more mass-storage devices within a brick is detected by logic within the brick. Next, in step 4004, logic within the brick determines which of the segments stored in the brick have been affected, the amount of available free space within the brick, and other such administrative information. When, as determined in step 4006, there is sufficient free space avail-able within the brick to restore all segments affected by the mass- storage-device failure or failures, all of the segments are restored, by importing redundantly stored data from other bricks, in step 4008. Otherwise, as determined in step 4010, when it is possible to move one or a few of the affected segments in order to obtain sufficient free space for rebuilding the remaining segments in the brick, as illustrated in FIGS. 37-39, then one or a few segments are chosen and moved to other bricks, in step 4012, and the remaining segments are restored, in step 4008. Jacobson, ¶ 108.
Advantageously, this minimizes external migration by freeing up internal space, which is distinctly different from the claimed invention's focus on intelligently selecting volume combinations for external migration.
The claimed invention determines volume migration patterns to other storage devices based on importance information and capacity information to restore redundancy. This is fundamentally different from Jacobson's approach of trying to free up space within a failed component. Therefore, the combination of Fleming and Jacobson fails to teach or suggest all elements of claim 1.“
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitation the Jacobson relies on to teach was a determination of a combination of one or more volumes, of volumes that have been to determined to be migration eligible, that would satisfy the amount of free space required based on capacity information of the one or more volumes. Jacobson teaches such limitation in the cited paragraphs 104, 106, and 108, where Jacobson teaches determining which segments to migrate to other bricks in order to create enough free space to recover redundancy for segments affected by failure. This teachings, in combination with the teachings cited in the Fleming reference, discloses all limitations of the instant claim at issue.
Applicant does not argue whether or not Jacobson teaches determining a combination of determined volumes that would satisfy the necessary amount of free space, as Jacobson was relied on to teach, but rather argues that Jacobson does not disclose selecting volumes for external migration, which was established as being taught by Fleming. Applicant does not show how the combination of references fails to teach the recited claim elements, rather applicant argues against a single reference as allegedly not teaching a feature it was not relied on to teach.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
All arguments have been addressed above. The arguments were found unpersuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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 MARC M DUNCAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3646. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 730am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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 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.
/MARC DUNCAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113