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 .
Response to Amendment
The following is a FINAL Office action in reply to the Amendments and Arguments received on June 16, 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8, 11 and 18 have been amended.
Claims 10 and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-9 and 10-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-9 are drawn to methods while claim(s) 11-19 is/are drawn to an apparatus. As such, claims 1-9 and 10-20 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 11) recites the following steps:
obtaining historical green energy production data that comprises information indicating when and where green energy was generated;
obtaining green energy cost data that comprises information indicating a cost of green energy at various locations in various seasons;
using the historical green energy production data and the green energy cost data to identify a potential target location for migration of a dataset from a current location of the dataset;
wherein identifying the potential target location includes use of predicted green energy production for the potential target location based at least in part on the historical green energy production data;
after the potential target location has been identified, detecting an unpredicted weather condition associated with the potential target location;
based on the unpredicted weather condition, performing an assessment to determine whether the dataset should remain scheduled for migration to the potential target location or be migrated to another location;
when the assessment determines that the dataset should not be migrated to the potential target location, not migrating the dataset to the potential target location; and
when a cost to perform the migration is lower, by a specified threshold amount, than a cost savings expected to be realized as a result of storing the dataset at the potential target location rather than at the current location,
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) migrating data to different geographic locations based, at least in part, on the availability and cost of green energy (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim 11 is determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
A non-transitory storage medium having stored therein instructions that are executable by one or more hardware processors to perform operations comprising (Claim 11)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of " migrating the dataset from a current location of the dataset to the potential target location." serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of " migrating the dataset from a current location of the dataset to the potential target location" serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims:
Dependent claims 2-8, 9, 10, 13-17 and 19-20 fail to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claims 2, 8, 12 and 18 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
a machine learning model
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The claims recite a computer-implemented infrastructure management technique that specifically controls whether and where a dataset is migrated across distributed storage locations based on predicted seasonal green energy production, dynamically detected unpredicted weather conditions, and comparative migration-cost thresholds.
Applicant Argues: These limitations define a technical control architecture for adaptive data-placement decision making in a distributed computing environment and are not operations practically performable in the human mind absent the claimed computing infrastructure and ongoing data driven monitoring processes.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that as stated in the updated 101 rejection above, the particular “obtaining…” and “detecting…" features of the claims are SO broad that they could reasonably be done mentally in the human mind as part of an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. There is nothing in the claim language nor in the specification that would prohibit such an implementation. In fact, there is no limiting technology tied to these features at all other a generic memory and processor. Therefore, contrary to applicant's assertion, these claimed features can and should be deemed part of a recited abstract idea categorized in Mental Process. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Even assuming arguendo that some aspect of the claims could be characterized as involving an abstract idea, the claims integrate any such concept into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applicant’s alleged improvement is not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. A showing that a claim is directed to any improvement does not automatically mean a claim is patent eligible (e.g., an improved business function or an improved idea itself is not patent eligible). In this case, determining whether to migrate date is an abstract idea, and an “improved” way is, if anything, an improvement to the idea itself.
Applicant Argues: The claims further require migration only when the migration cost is lower by a specified threshold amount than the expected storage savings at the target location. These limitations are not mere field-of-use restrictions or generalized instructions to "apply" forecasting on a computer. Rather, they improve the operation of distributed storage management systems by reducing inefficient or counterproductive migrations caused by rapidly changing environmental conditions and inaccurate energy-production assumptions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner reiterates from the 101 rejection above that the limitations of " obtaining …data… and “detecting… weather condition”... “performing an assessment...” represent a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. These claimed steps relate to concepts that merely involve observing, evaluating and judging data. This concept falls under the "Mental Processes" abstract idea grouping. There is nothing that precludes these steps from being performed in the human mind, and there is nothing limiting or excluding regarding the real-time implementation, as observations and judgements occur in real-time all the time. With regard to the migration of the dataset after a decision has been made, that serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the examiner is not persuaded by applicant's argument.
Applicant Argues: Under MPEP §2106.0S(a), the claims improve another technology or technical field, namely distributed data-storage management and energy-aware computing infrastructure. Under MPEP §2106.0S(e), the claims apply any alleged abstract idea in a meaningful way that imposes real limitations on dataset migration operations.
In combination, the steps disclose a sequence of operations that include obtaining data, detecting conditions, and performing some assessment based on a condition. The only arguable inventive aspect of this set of steps is the particulars of the information processed. Apart from such particulars as is known of those of ordinary skill , the claimed combination of operations amounts to a generic, routine and conventional sequence of generic, routine and conventional operations of a computer system. Further the combination of operations automates a mental process that could be performed by a “human analog.” For example, a human being could watch the weather and determine if the data should be migrated. For that additional reason, in combination, the claimed operations of the computer system fail to add significantly more to the abstract idea.
None of the claims (independent or dependent) effects an improvement to another technology or technical field; nor does any of the claims amount to an improvement to the function of the processor configured to perform the abstract steps.
Applicant Argues: The ordered combination of elements recited in the amended claims is neither routine nor conventional.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to decision making, which is abstract. The details of the claim, gather data, analyze the data and use the data to make a decision. The claims directed to the decision of whether to migrate datasets does not serve to transform the claims to eligible subject matter because they serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Applicant Argues: The Examiner's own prior art rejection further confirms that the presently amended limitations were not shown to be routine or conventional because the cited references do not teach or suggest the claimed adaptive reassessment architecture based on post-selection detection of unpredicted weather conditions in combination with threshold-controlled migration logic.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Without reference to the currently pending claims, even if a claim were found to contain novel elements, such a conclusion would not automatically transform the claim into patentable subject matter. Just as it is possible for an abstract idea or other judicial exception to be novel while still remaining a judicial exception, determination of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 are a separate inquiry than determinations of patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The examiner would note issues of novelty are separate and distinct from issues of patent eligibility, and those issues should not be conflated.
Applicant Argues: Like Example 40, Applicant's claims do not merely analyze data or make generalized recommendations. Instead, the claims recite a specific adaptive control mechanism that changes system operation based on dynamically detected abnormal conditions.
Respectfully, Examiner does not find support for “a specific adaptive control mechanism that changes system operation.” In fact, the instant claims are really more of operative steps that are done one-by-one (like stepping through a flowchart with binary options of yes or no) rather than being controlled and implemented by significant, imperative and transformative rules or operations that are specifically governing the implementation of the invention. Turning to the instant invention, it is clear that the claims are merely drawn to a method of decision making that is performed in a routine and conventional manner via generic computer technology. The claims of the instant invention are not at all like Example 40, but rather disclose a number of abstract ideas (as explained above) that are associated with generic computer technology. As such, the claims remain ineligible under section 101.
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 RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571) 272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights