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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected in the application. This action is Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Argues
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the amended claims do not recite a mental process. The Office Action's analysis treats each operation in isolation and concludes that the steps could be performed mentally "but for" generic computer components. Applicant submits that such a characterization does not reasonably account for the claimed data-structure and file-access operations. For example, amended claim 1 recites generating an index into compressed storage-system monitoring data from time information to locate data samples in the compressed storage-system monitoring data, generating one or more data files storing the compressed storage-system monitoring data and the index, wherein the index is used to locate compressed desired data. Corresponding limitations appear in independent claims 10 and 16. These are not observations, judgments, or calculations that can practically be performed in the human mind. They are computer-centric operations involving compressed data files, stored index structures, and file locations.
Examiner Responds:
Applicant's 35 USC § 101 arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered and are not persuasive.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) provides:
“The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. These decisions, and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").”
Here, The Examiner agrees that amended claim 1 recites operations involving computer-implemented data structures, compressed storage-system monitoring data, an index, and data files. However, the fact that a claim recites generic computer components or data structures does not, by itself, demonstrate that the claim is not directed to a mental process. The § 101 analysis is based on the claim as a whole and does not require that every individual limitation be capable of being performed mentally. Here, the limitations directed to splitting monitoring data, performing statistical analysis, selecting a compression algorithm based on a data type identified from the analysis, determining time information, and generating an index based on the time information are directed to the collection, analysis, and manipulation of information, which can constitute mental processes when considered at their functional level. The recitation of compressed data, an index, and data files describes the manner in which the results of the analysis are represented and stored, but does not, without more, integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application or otherwise provide a technological improvement. Accordingly, Applicant's arguments do not establish that the amended claims are outside the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101, and the rejection is maintained.
The Examiner suggests incorporating into the claims the complete steps associated with the technical improvement described by Applicant. Specifically, the specification explains that “[t]he read-path disclosure further shows that the index is used to locate the desired data in the compressed data, the extractor uses the resulting location to extract desired compressed data, and transmitting only the compressed desired data,” among other steps. The current claims, however, do not recite how the index is used to locate and extract the desired compressed data. Incorporating these additional steps would more fully capture the claimed technical process and the specific operations that provide the technical improvement described in the specification.
Applicant Argues
Independent claims 1 and 16 of the present application each recite a process of generating an index into compressed storage system monitoring data to locate data samples in the compressed storage system monitoring data. Applicant submits that Kornmeier, Shaklikashvili, and Kamamoto each fail to disclose or suggest such a process. In fact, the Office Action admits that Kornmeier and Shaklikashvili fail to disclose the process. See Office Action at Page 31, lines 3-5. However, the Office Action has cited paragraph [0043] of Kamamoto as disclosing the process. Id. at lines 6-8. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Examiner Responds:
Applicant's 35 USC § 103 argument with respect to claims 1-20 has been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 1 recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 1 recites a method for processing storage system monitoring data, comprising:
splitting, by one or more processors, received storage system monitoring data into signal data and time information;
pre-processing, by the one or more processors, the signal data to perform a statistical analysis on the signal data;
selecting, by the one or more processors, a first of a plurality of compression algorithms based on a data type identified in the statistical analysis on the signal data;
compressing, by the one or more processors, the signal data using the first compression algorithm to generate compressed storage system monitoring data;
determining a start time, an end time and a sampling interval indicating a frequency of data samples taken between the start time and the end time;
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “storage system” and “one or more processors” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a storage system” and “one or more processors” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for the storage system and one or more processors, “splitting received storage system monitoring data into signal data and time information;” encompasses mentally a person splitting received storage system monitoring data into signal data and time information.
Next, but for the storage system and one or more processors, “pre-processing the signal data to perform a statistical analysis on the signal data” encompasses mentally a person pre-processing the signal data to perform a statistical analysis on the signal data.
In addition, but for the storage system and one or more processors, “selecting a first of a plurality of compressions algorithm based on a data type identified in the statistical analysis on the signal data;” encompasses mentally a person selecting a first of a plurality of compressions algorithm based on a data type identified in the statistical analysis on the signal data.
Further, but for the storage system and one or more processors, “compressing, by the one or more processors, the signal data using the first compression algorithm to generate compressed storage system monitoring data;” encompasses mentally a person compressing, by the one or more processors, the signal data using the first compression algorithm to generate compressed storage system monitoring data.
Next, but for the storage system and one or more processors, “determining a start time, an end time and a sampling interval indicating a frequency of data samples taken between the start time and the end time;” encompasses mentally a person determining a start time, an end time and a sampling interval indicating a frequency of data samples taken between the start time and the end time. The mere nominal recitation of a storage system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its 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” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites a storage system and one or more processors.
generating, by the one or more processors, an index into the compressed storage system monitoring data from the time information locate data samples in the compressed storage system monitoring data;
and storing the start time, the end time, and the sampling interval;
and
generating, by the one or more processors, one or more data files to store the compressed storage system monitoring data and the index.
Here, “a storage systems” and “one or more processors” amounts to mere generic computer components which does not amount to an inventive concept.
Next, “generating, by the one or more processors, an index into the compressed storage system monitoring data from the time information locate data samples in the compressed storage system monitoring data;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “storing the start time, the end time, and the sampling interval;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “generating, by the one or more processors, one or more data files to store the compressed storage system monitoring data and the index.” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 1 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere processing and compressing signal data cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “generating, by the one or more processors, an index into the compressed storage system monitoring data from the time information locate data samples in the compressed storage system monitoring data;”, “storing the start time, the end time, and the sampling interval;”, and “generating, by the one or more processors, one or more data files to store the compressed storage system monitoring data and the index.” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “generating, by the one or more processors, an index into the compressed storage system monitoring data from the time information locate data samples in the compressed storage system monitoring data;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “storing the start time, the end time, and the sampling interval;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “generating, by the one or more processors, one or more data files to store the compressed storage system monitoring data and the index.” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “generating, by the one or more processors, an index into the compressed storage system monitoring data from the time information locate data samples in the compressed storage system monitoring data;”, “storing the start time, the end time, and the sampling interval;”, and “generating, by the one or more processors, one or more data files to store the compressed storage system monitoring data and the index.” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, “wherein the storage system monitoring data includes one or more of: central processing unit (CPU) usage, CPU utilization, memory usage, storage utilization, database latency, and disk latency” of dependent claim 2 is abstract because the claim encompasses mere generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein pre-processing the signal data includes normalizing, by the one or more processors, the signal data” of dependent claim 3 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person pre-processing the signal data includes normalizing the signal data. As noted above, the processors are mere generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 3 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein: pre-processing the signal data includes: dividing, by the one or more processors, the signal data into segments” of dependent claim 4 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person dividing the signal data into segments. In addition, “performing, by the one or more processors, the statistical analysis on each of the segments” of dependent claim 4 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person performing the statistical analysis on each of the segments. Further, “selecting, by the one or more processors, the compression algorithm includes selecting a compression algorithm for each segment based on the statistical analysis for each segment” of dependent claim 4 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person selecting the compression algorithm includes selecting a compression algorithm for each segment based on the statistical analysis for each segment. As noted above, the processors are mere generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 4 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “pre-processing the signal data includes: dividing, by the one or more processors, the signal data into segments, wherein each of the segments includes 2N samples, where N is an integer” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person dividing the signal data into segments, wherein each of the segments includes 2N samples, where N is an integer. In addition, “performing, by the one or more processors, the statistical analysis on each of the segments” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person performing the statistical analysis on each of the segments. Next, “selecting, by the one or more processors, the compression algorithm includes selecting a compression algorithm for each segment based on the statistical analysis for each segment” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person selecting a compression algorithm for each segment based on the statistical analysis for each segment. Further, “compressing, by the one or more processors, the signal data includes compressing the signal data of each segment using the selected compression algorithm for each segment” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person compressing the signal data of each segment using the selected compression algorithm for each segment. As noted above, the processors are mere generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 5 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data are similar, selecting, by the one or more processors, the compression algorithm includes selecting a basic mathematical formula.” of dependent claim 6 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data are similar, selecting the compression algorithm includes selecting a basic mathematical formula. As noted above, the processors are mere generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data cross a zero line multiple times, selecting, by the one or more processors, the compression algorithm includes selecting a Fast Fourier Transform.” of dependent claim 7 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data cross a zero line multiple times, selecting the compression algorithm includes selecting a Fast Fourier Transform. As noted above, the processors are mere generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data are noisy, selecting the compression algorithm includes: selecting, by the one or more processors, a candidate compression algorithm from a predetermined library of candidate compression algorithms;” of dependent claim 8 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data are noisy, selecting the compression algorithm includes: selecting a candidate compression algorithm from a predetermined library of candidate compression algorithms. Next, “applying, by the one or more processors, the selected candidate compression algorithm to determine whether the selected candidate compression algorithm achieves a threshold compression ratio” of dependent claim 8 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person applying the selected candidate compression algorithm to determine whether the selected candidate compression algorithm achieves a threshold compression ratio. Further, “on a condition that the selected candidate compression algorithm achieves a threshold compression ratio, selecting, by the one or more processors, the candidate compression algorithm as the compression algorithm” of dependent claim 8 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining on a condition that the selected candidate compression algorithm achieves a threshold compression ratio, selecting the candidate compression algorithm as the compression algorithm. Further, “on a condition that the selected candidate compression algorithm does not achieve the threshold compression ratio, selecting, by the one or more processors, a different candidate compression algorithm from the predetermined library” of dependent claim 8 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining on a condition that the selected candidate compression algorithm does not achieve the threshold compression ratio, selecting a different candidate compression algorithm from the predetermined library. Next, “on a condition that all candidate compression algorithms in the predetermined library have been applied, selecting, by the one or more processors, the compression algorithm includes selecting an audio compression algorithm” of dependent claim 8 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining on a condition that all candidate compression algorithms in the predetermined library have been applied, selecting the compression algorithm includes selecting an audio compression algorithm. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein generating the index includes: determining, by the one or more processors, a start time, an end time, and a given sampling interval indicating a frequency of data samples taken between the start time and the end time” of dependent claim 9 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining, by the one or more processors, a start time, an end time, and a given sampling interval indicating a frequency of data samples taken between the start time and the end time. Next, “storing, by the one or more processor, the start time, the end time, and the interval as a line” of dependent claim 9 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person storing the start time, the end time, and the interval as a line. As noted above, the processors are mere generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 10-15 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 10 recites a query engine and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 10 recites A system for processing storage system monitoring data, comprising:
split received storage system monitoring data into signal data and time information;
pre-process the signal data to perform a statistical analysis on the signal data;
select a first of a plurality compressions algorithm based on a data type identified in the statistical analysis on the signal data;
compress the signal data using the first compression algorithm to generate compressed storage system monitoring data;
determining a start time, an end time, and a sampling interval indicating a frequency of data samples taken between the start time and the end time; and
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “storage system”, “a memory”, and “a processor” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting storage system”, “a memory”, and “a processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 10 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for the storage system, “split received storage system monitoring data into signal data and time information;” encompasses mentally a person splitting received storage system monitoring data into signal data and time information.
Next, but for the storage system, “pre-process the signal data to perform a statistical analysis on the signal data” encompasses mentally a person pre-processing the signal data to perform a statistical analysis on the signal data.
In addition, but for the storage system, “select a first of a plurality compressions algorithm based on a data type identified in the statistical analysis on the signal data;” encompasses mentally a person selecting a first of a plurality compressions algorithm based on a data type identified in the statistical analysis on the signal data.
Further, but for the storage system, “compress the signal data using the first compression algorithm to generate compressed storage system monitoring data;” encompasses mentally a person compressing the signal data using the first compression algorithm to generate compressed storage system monitoring data.
Next, but for the storage system, “determining a start time, an end time, and a sampling interval indicating a frequency of data samples taken between the start time and the end time;” encompasses mentally a person determining a start time, an end time, and a sampling interval indicating a frequency of data samples taken between the start time and the end time. The mere nominal recitation of a storage system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its 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” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 10 recites a storage system.
a memory configured to store instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions stored in the memory to:
generate an index into the compressed storage system monitoring data from the time information to locate data samples in the compressed storage system monitoring data by:
storing the start time, the end time, and the interval as a line;
and generate one or more data files to store the compressed storage system monitoring data and the index.
Here, “a storage systems”, “a memory configured to store instructions”, and “a processor configured to execute the instructions stored in the memory to” amounts to mere generic computer components which does not amount to an inventive concept.
Next, “generate an index into the compressed storage system monitoring data from the time information to locate data samples in the compressed storage system monitoring data by:” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “storing the start time, the end time, and the interval as a line;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “generate one or more data files to store the compressed storage system monitoring data and the index.” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 10 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere processing and compressing signal data cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 10 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “generate an index into the compressed storage system monitoring data from the time information to locate data samples in the compressed storage system monitoring data by:”, “storing the start time, the end time, and the interval as a line;”, and “generate one or more data files to store the compressed storage system monitoring data and the index.” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “generate an index into the compressed storage system monitoring data from the time information to locate data samples in the compressed storage system monitoring data by:” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “storing the start time, the end time, and the interval as a line;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “generate one or more data files to store the compressed storage system monitoring data and the index.” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “generate an index into the compressed storage system monitoring data from the time information to locate data samples in the compressed storage system monitoring data by:”, “storing the start time, the end time, and the interval as a line;”, and “generate one or more data files to store the compressed storage system monitoring data and the index.” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, “wherein the processor is further configured to pre-process the signal data by normalizing the signal data” of dependent claim 11 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person pre-processing the signal data includes normalizing the signal data. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein the processor is further configured to: pre-process the signal data by: dividing the signal data into segments, wherein each of the segments includes 2N samples, where N is an integer” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person dividing the signal data into segments, wherein each of the segments includes 2N samples, where N is an integer. In addition, “performing the statistical analysis on each of the segments” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person performing the statistical analysis on each of the segments. Further, “of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person performing the statistical analysis on each of the segments. Next, “selecting the compression algorithm includes selecting a compression algorithm for each segment based on the statistical analysis for each segment” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person selecting a compression algorithm for each segment based on the statistical analysis for each segment. Further, “compressing the signal data includes compressing the signal data of each segment using the selected compression algorithm for each segment” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person compressing the signal data of each segment using the selected compression algorithm for each segment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data are similar, the processor is further configured to select the compression algorithm by selecting a basic mathematical formula.” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data are similar, selecting the compression algorithm includes selecting a basic mathematical formula. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data cross a zero line multiple times, the processor is further configured to select the compression algorithm by selecting a Fast Fourier Transform” of dependent claim 14 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data cross a zero line multiple times, selecting the compression algorithm includes selecting a Fast Fourier Transform. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data are noisy, selecting the compression algorithm includes: selecting a candidate compression algorithm from a predetermined library of candidate compression algorithms;” of dependent claim 15 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data are noisy, selecting the compression algorithm includes: selecting a candidate compression algorithm from a predetermined library of candidate compression algorithms. Next, “applying the selected candidate compression algorithm to determine whether the selected candidate compression algorithm achieves a threshold compression ratio” of dependent claim 15 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person applying the selected candidate compression algorithm to determine whether the selected candidate compression algorithm achieves a threshold compression ratio. Further, “on a condition that the selected candidate compression algorithm achieves a threshold compression ratio, selecting the candidate compression algorithm as the compression algorithm” of dependent claim 15 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining on a condition that the selected candidate compression algorithm achieves a threshold compression ratio, selecting the candidate compression algorithm as the compression algorithm. Further, “on a condition that the selected candidate compression algorithm does not achieve the threshold compression ratio, selecting a different candidate compression algorithm from the predetermined library” of dependent claim 15 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining on a condition that the selected candidate compression algorithm does not achieve the threshold compression ratio, selecting a different candidate compression algorithm from the predetermined library. Next, “on a condition that all candidate compression algorithms in the predetermined library have been applied, selecting the compression algorithm includes selecting an audio compression algorithm” of dependent claim 15 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining on a condition that all candidate compression algorithms in the predetermined library have been applied, selecting the compression algorithm includes selecting an audio compression algorithm. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 16-20 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 16 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 16 recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium containing instructions that, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to:
received storage system monitoring data into signal data and time information;
pre-process the signal data to perform a statistical analysis on the signal data;
select a first of a plurality compression algorithm based on a data type identified in the statistical analysis on the signal data;
compress the signal data using the first compression algorithm to generate compressed storage system monitoring data. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “a non-transitory machine-readable medium” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a non-transitory machine-readable medium” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 16 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, “received storage system monitoring data into signal data and time information;” encompasses mentally a person receiving storage system monitoring data into signal data and time information.
Next, “pre-process the signal data to perform a statistical analysis on the signal data by” encompasses mentally a person pre-processing the signal data to perform a statistical analysis on the signal data.
Next, “select a first of a plurality compression algorithm based on a data type identified in the statistical analysis on the signal data;” encompasses mentally a person selecting a first of a plurality compression algorithm based on a data type identified in the statistical analysis on the signal data.
Further, “compress the signal data using the first compression algorithm to generate compressed storage system monitoring data;” encompasses mentally a person compressing the signal data using the first compression algorithm to generate compressed storage system monitoring data. The mere nominal recitation of a non-transitory machine does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its 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” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 16 recites a non-transitory medium.
generate an index into the compressed storage system monitoring from the time information to locate data samples in the compressed storage system monitoring data; and
generate one or more data files to store the compressed storage system monitoring data and the index.
Here, “a non-transitory medium” configured to execute the instructions stored in the memory to” amounts to mere generic computer components which does not amount to an inventive concept.
Next, “generate an index into the compressed storage system monitoring from the time information to locate data samples in the compressed storage system monitoring data;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “generate one or more data files to store the compressed storage system monitoring data and the index.” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 16 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere processing and compressing signal data cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 16 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “generate an index into the compressed storage system monitoring from the time information to locate data samples in the compressed storage system monitoring data;” and
“generate one or more data files to store the compressed storage system monitoring data and the index.” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “generate an index into the compressed storage system monitoring from the time information to locate data samples in the compressed storage system monitoring data;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “generate one or more data files to store the compressed storage system monitoring data and the index.” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “generate an index into the compressed storage system monitoring from the time information to locate data samples in the compressed storage system monitoring data;” and
“generate one or more data files to store the compressed storage system monitoring data and the index.” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, “determining a start time, an end time, and a sampling interval indicating a frequency of data samples taken between the start time and the end time” of dependent claim 17 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining a start time, an end time, and a sampling interval indicating a frequency of data samples taken between the start time and the end time. Next, “storing the start time, the end time, and the interval as a line” of dependent claim 17 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person storing the start time, the end time, and the interval as a line. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data are similar, selecting the compression algorithm includes selecting a basic mathematical formula.” of dependent claim 18 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data are similar, selecting the compression algorithm includes selecting a basic mathematical formula. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data cross a zero line multiple times, selecting the compression algorithm includes selecting a Fast Fourier Transform.” of dependent claim 19 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data cross a zero line multiple times, selecting the compression algorithm includes selecting a Fast Fourier Transform. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data are noisy, selecting the compression algorithm includes: selecting a candidate compression algorithm from a predetermined library of candidate compression algorithms;” of dependent claim 20 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data are noisy, selecting the compression algorithm includes: selecting a candidate compression algorithm from a predetermined library of candidate compression algorithms. Next, “applying the selected candidate compression algorithm to determine whether the selected candidate compression algorithm achieves a threshold compression ratio” of dependent claim 20 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person applying the selected candidate compression algorithm to determine whether the selected candidate compression algorithm achieves a threshold compression ratio. Further, “on a condition that the selected candidate compression algorithm achieves a threshold compression ratio, selecting the candidate compression algorithm as the compression algorithm” of dependent claim 20 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining on a condition that the selected candidate compression algorithm achieves a threshold compression ratio, selecting the candidate compression algorithm as the compression algorithm. Further, “on a condition that the selected candidate compression algorithm does not achieve the threshold compression ratio, selecting a different candidate compression algorithm from the predetermined library” of dependent claim 8 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining on a condition that the selected candidate compression algorithm does not achieve the threshold compression ratio, selecting a different candidate compression algorithm from the predetermined library. Next, “on a condition that all candidate compression algorithms in the predetermined library have been applied, selecting the compression algorithm includes selecting an audio compression algorithm” of dependent claim 8 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining on a condition that all candidate compression algorithms in the predetermined library have been applied, selecting the compression algorithm includes selecting an audio compression algorithm. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-6, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kornmeier et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2021/0271675; hereinafter: Kornmeier) in view of Shalikashvili et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0063814; hereinafter: Shalikashvili) and further in view of Hicks et al. U.S. Patent (12,657,196; hereinafter: Hicks) and further in view of Kamamoto et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2021/0233549; hereinafter: Kamamoto)
Claims 1 and 16
As to claim 1, Kornmeier discloses a method for processing storage system monitoring data, comprising:
splitting, by one or more processors, received storage system monitoring data into signal data and time information (Figure 1A, paragraph[0018], the reference describes the data being split into a signal and time structure.);
pre-processing, by the one or more processors, the signal data to perform a statistical analysis on the signal data (paragraph[0007], the reference describes retrieving and processing network data for data analysis.);
Kornmeier does not appear to explicitly discloses selecting, by the one ore more processors, a first of a plurality of compression algorithms, based on a data type identified in the statistical analysis on the signal data;
compressing, by the one or more processors, the signal data using the first compression algorithm to generate compressed storage system monitoring data;
generating, by the one or more processors, an index into the compressed storage system monitoring data from the time information to locate data samples in the compressed data storage system monitoring data;
determining a start time, an end time and a sampling interval indicating a frequency of data samples taken between the start time and the end time; and
storing the start time, the end time, and the sampling interval; and
generate, by the one or more processors, one or more data files to store the compressed storage system monitoring data and the index.
However, Shalikashvili discloses selecting, by the one ore more processors, a first of a plurality of compression algorithms, based on a data type identified in the statistical analysis on the signal data (paragraph[0081] and paragraph[0086], the reference describes using the best compression algorithm from a list of compression algorithms based on the type of data.).
compressing, by the one or more processors, the signal data using the first compression algorithm to generate compressed storage system monitoring data (paragraph[0087], the reference describes compressing the data.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili to determine the best compression algorithm to use based on data type which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili to efficiently provide machine language-powered compression strategy selection (Shalikashvili: paragraph[0007]).
The combination of Kornmeier and Shalikashvili do not appear to explicitly disclose generating, by the one or more processors, an index into the compressed storage system monitoring data from the time information to locate data samples in the compressed data storage system monitoring data;
determining a start time, an end time and a sampling interval indicating a frequency of data samples taken between the start time and the end time; and storing the start time, the end time, and the sampling interval; and
generate, by the one or more processors, one or more data files to store the compressed storage system monitoring data and the index.
However, Hicks discloses generating, by the one or more processors, an index into the compressed storage system monitoring data from the time information to locate data samples in the compressed data storage system monitoring data (column 10, lines 26-39, the reference describes generating an index of time series data from event data (i.e., storage system monitoring data, as claimed).);
determining a start time, an end time and a sampling interval indicating a frequency of data samples taken between the start time and the end time (column 39, lines 7-16, the reference describes capturing a start time and end time of data points.); and
storing the start time, the end time, and the sampling interval (column 39, lines 57-67 and column 40, lines 1-3, the reference describes storing the time series data.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili and Hicks to store timeseries index date which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili and Hicks to efficiently store data and facilitate efficient retrieval and analysis of those data items at a later time (Hicks: column 1, lines 35-39).
The combination of Kornmeier, Shalikashvili, and Hicks do not appear to explicitly disclose generate, by the one or more processors, one or more data files to store the compressed storage system monitoring data and the index.
However, Kamamoto discloses generating an index from the time information to locate data samples in the compressed data (paragraph[0043], the reference describes indexing the sample data.); and
generate one or more files to store the compressed data and the index (paragraph[0043], the reference describes outputting the data into indexes.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili, Hicks, and Kamamoto to compress signal data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili, Hicks, and Kamamoto to efficiently convert sound into a sound closer to a natural sound by pitch (Kamamoto: paragraph[0002]).
Claim 2
As to claim 2, the combination of Kornmeier, Shalikashvili, Hicks, and Kamamoto discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Kornmeier further disclose wherein the storage system monitoring data includes one or more of: central processing unit (CPU) usage, CPU utilization, memory usage, storage utilization, database latency, and disk latency (paragraph[0043]).
Claim 3
As to claim 3, the combination of Kornmeier, Shalikashvili, Hicks, and Kamamoto discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Kamamoto further disclose wherein pre-processing the signal data includes normalizing, by the one or more processors, the signal data (paragraph[0030], the reference describes normalizing the signal data.).
Claim 4
As to claim 4, the combination of Kornmeier, Shalikashvili, Hicks, and Kamamoto discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Kamamoto further disclose wherein:
pre-processing the signal data includes:
dividing, by the one or more processors, the signal data into segments (paragraph[0043], the reference describes placing the signal in frames (i.e., segments, as claimed).);
performing, by the one or more processors, the statistical analysis on each of the segments (paragraph[0044], the reference describes analyzing the signal.); and
selecting, by the one or more processors, the compression algorithm includes selecting a compression algorithm for each segment based on the statistical analysis for each segment (paragraph[0026], the reference describes compressing the signal frames.).
Claim 5
As to claim 5, the combination of Kornmeier, Shalikashvili, Hicks, and Kamamoto discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Kamamoto further disclose wherein:
pre-processing the signal data includes:
dividing, by the one or more processors, the signal data into segments, wherein each of the segments includes 2N samples, where N is an integer(paragraph[0043], the reference describes placing the signal in frames (i.e., segments, as claimed). The Examiner interprets the N as zero which equal 1 sample.); and
performing the statistical analysis on each of the segments(paragraph[0044], the reference describes analyzing the signal.);
selecting, by the one or more processors, the compression algorithm includes selecting a compression algorithm for each segment based on the statistical analysis for each segment(paragraph[0026], the reference describes compressing the signal frames.); and
compressing, by the one or more processors, the signal data includes compressing the signal data of each segment using the selected compression algorithm for each segment(paragraph[0026], the reference describes compressing the signal frames.).
Claim 6
As to claim 6, the combination of Kornmeier, Shalikashvili, Hicks, and Kamamoto discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Kamamoto further disclose wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data are similar, selecting, by the one or more processors, the compression algorithm includes selecting a basic mathematical formula (paragraph[0026], the reference describes using a function formula.).
Claim 18
As to claim 18, the combination of Kornmeier, Shalikashvili, Hicks, and Kamamoto discloses all the elements in claim 16, as noted above, and Kamamoto further disclose wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data are similar, the instructions further cause the machine to select the compression algorithm by selecting a basic mathematical formula (paragraph[0026], the reference describes using a function formula.).
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kornmeier et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2021/0271675; hereinafter: Kornmeier) in view of Shalikashvili et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0063814; hereinafter: Shalikashvili) and further in view of Hicks et al. U.S. Patent (12,657,196; hereinafter: Hicks) and further in view of Kamamoto et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2021/0233549; hereinafter: Kamamoto) and further in view of Abdellatif et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2019/0319642; hereinafter: Abdellatif)
Claim 7
As to claim 7, the combination of Kornmeier, Shalikashvili, Hicks, and Kamamoto discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do appear to explicitly disclose wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data cross a zero line multiple times, selecting, by the one or more processors, the compression algorithm includes selecting a Fast Fourier Transform.
However, Abdellatif discloses wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data cross a zero line multiple times, selecting, by the one or more processors, the compression algorithm includes selecting a Fast Fourier Transform (paragraph[0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili, Hicks, Kamamoto, and Abdellatif to use a Fast Fourier transform which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili, Hicks, Kamamoto, and Abdellatif to efficiently reform the data streams (Abdellatif: paragraph[0002]).
Claim 19
As to claim 19, the combination of Kornmeier, Shalikashvili, Hicks, and Kamamoto discloses all the elements in claim 16, as noted above, but do appear to explicitly disclose wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data cross a zero line multiple times, selecting the compression algorithm includes selecting a Fast Fourier Transform.
However, Abdellatif discloses wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data cross a zero line multiple times, selecting the compression algorithm includes selecting a Fast Fourier Transform (paragraph[0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili, Hicks, Kamamoto, and Abdellatif to use a Fast Fourier transform which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili, Hicks, Kamamoto, and Abdellatif to efficiently reform the data streams (Abdellatif: paragraph[0002]).
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kornmeier et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2021/0271675; hereinafter: Kornmeier) in view of Shalikashvili et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0063814; hereinafter: Shalikashvili) and further in view of Hicks et al. U.S. Patent (12,657,196; hereinafter: Hicks) and further in view of Kamamoto et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2021/0233549; hereinafter: Kamamoto) and further in view of Sasaki U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0104397; hereinafter: Sasaki)
Claim 8
As to claim 8, the combination of Kornmeier, Shalikashvili, Hicks, and Kamamoto discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do appear to explicitly disclose wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data are noisy, selecting the compression algorithm includes:
selecting, by the one or more processors, a candidate compression algorithm from a predetermined library of candidate compression algorithms;
applying, by the one or more processors, the selected candidate compression algorithm to determine whether the selected candidate compression algorithm achieves a threshold compression ratio;
on a condition that the selected candidate compression algorithm achieves a threshold compression ratio, selecting, by the one or more processors, the candidate compression algorithm as the compression algorithm;
on a condition that the selected candidate compression algorithm does not achieve the threshold compression ratio, selecting, by the one or more processors, a different candidate compression algorithm from the predetermined library; and
on a condition that all candidate compression algorithms in the predetermined library have been applied, selecting, by the one or more processors, the compression algorithm includes selecting an audio compression algorithm.
However, Sasaki discloses wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data are noisy, selecting the compression algorithm includes:
selecting, by the one or more processors, a candidate compression algorithm from a predetermined library of candidate compression algorithms (paragraph[0004], the reference describes selecting a specific comprising algorithm based on a threshold.);
applying, by the one or more processors, the selected candidate compression algorithm to determine whether the selected candidate compression algorithm achieves a threshold compression ratio (paragraph[0004], the reference describes selecting a specific comprising algorithm based on a threshold. The reference uses the compression ratio.);
on a condition that the selected candidate compression algorithm achieves a threshold compression ratio, selecting, by the one or more processors, the candidate compression algorithm as the compression algorithm(paragraph[0004], the reference describes selecting a specific comprising algorithm based on a threshold. The reference uses the compression ratio. The Examiner interprets the condition limitations as optional.);
on a condition that the selected candidate compression algorithm does not achieve the threshold compression ratio, selecting, by the one or more processors, a different candidate compression algorithm from the predetermined library(paragraph[0004], the reference describes selecting a specific comprising algorithm based on a threshold. The reference uses the compression ratio. The Examiner interprets the condition limitations as optional. The Examiner interprets the compression algorithm achieving the threshold.); and
on a condition that all candidate compression algorithms in the predetermined library have been applied, selecting, by the one or more processors, the compression algorithm includes selecting an audio compression algorithm(paragraph[0004], the reference describes selecting a specific comprising algorithm based on a threshold. The reference uses the compression ratio. The Examiner interprets the condition limitations as optional. The Examiner interprets only one compression algorithm has been applied.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili, Hicks, Kamamoto, and Sasaki to use a compression algorithm based on the threshold which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili, Hicks, Kamamoto, and Sasaki to efficiently reduce a data amount of times-series data that change continuously over time so as to user the data (Sasaki: paragraph[0002]).
Claim 20
As to claim 20, the combination of Kornmeier, Shalikashvili, Hicks, and Kamamoto discloses all the elements in claim 16, as noted above, but do appear to explicitly disclose wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data are noisy, the instructions further cause the machine to select the compression algorithm by:
selecting a candidate compression algorithm from a predetermined library of candidate compression algorithms;
applying the selected candidate compression algorithm to determine whether the selected candidate compression algorithm achieves a threshold compression ratio;
on a condition that the selected candidate compression algorithm achieves a threshold compression ratio, selecting the candidate compression algorithm as the compression algorithm;
on a condition that the selected candidate compression algorithm does not achieve the threshold compression ratio, selecting a different candidate compression algorithm from the predetermined library; and
on a condition that all candidate compression algorithms in the predetermined library have been applied, selecting the compression algorithm includes selecting an audio compression algorithm.
However, Sasaki discloses wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data are noisy, the instructions further cause the machine to select the compression algorithm by:
selecting a candidate compression algorithm from a predetermined library of candidate compression algorithms (paragraph[0004], the reference describes selecting a specific comprising algorithm based on a threshold.);
applying the selected candidate compression algorithm to determine whether the selected candidate compression algorithm achieves a threshold compression ratio (paragraph[0004], the reference describes selecting a specific comprising algorithm based on a threshold. The reference uses the compression ratio.);
on a condition that the selected candidate compression algorithm achieves a threshold compression ratio, selecting the candidate compression algorithm as the compression algorithm (paragraph[0004], the reference describes selecting a specific comprising algorithm based on a threshold. The reference uses the compression ratio. The Examiner interprets the condition limitations as optional.);
on a condition that the selected candidate compression algorithm does not achieve the threshold compression ratio, selecting a different candidate compression algorithm from the predetermined library(paragraph[0004], the reference describes selecting a specific comprising algorithm based on a threshold. The reference uses the compression ratio. The Examiner interprets the condition limitations as optional. The Examiner interprets the compression algorithm achieving the threshold.); and
on a condition that all candidate compression algorithms in the predetermined library have been applied, selecting the compression algorithm includes selecting an audio compression algorithm(paragraph[0004], the reference describes selecting a specific comprising algorithm based on a threshold. The reference uses the compression ratio. The Examiner interprets the condition limitations as optional. The Examiner interprets only one compression algorithm has been applied.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili, Hicks, Kamamoto, and Sasaki to use a compression algorithm based on the threshold which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili, Hicks, Kamamoto, and Sasaki to efficiently reduce a data amount of times-series data that change continuously over time so as to user the data (Sasaki: paragraph[0002]).
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kornmeier et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2021/0271675; hereinafter: Kornmeier) in view of Shalikashvili et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0063814; hereinafter: Shalikashvili) and further in view of Hicks et al. U.S. Patent (12,657,196; hereinafter: Hicks) and further in view of Kamamoto et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2021/0233549; hereinafter: Kamamoto) and further in view of Deaderick et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2025/0315360; hereinafter: Deaderick)
Claim 9
As to claim 9, the combination of Kornmeier, Shalikashvili, Hicks, and Kamamoto discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein generating the index includes:
determining, by the one or more processors, a start time, an end time and a given sampling interval indicating a frequency of data samples taken between the start time and the end time; and
storing, by the one or more processors, the start time, the end time, and the interval as a line.
However, Deaderick discloses determining, by the one or more processors, a start time, an end time and a given sampling interval indicating a frequency of data samples taken between the start time and the end time (paragraph[0238], the reference describes determining time series data (i.e., start time and end time, as claimed) and frequency of a period (i.e., sampling interval, as claimed).); and
storing, by the one or more processors, the start time, the end time, and the interval as a line (paragraph[0237]-paragraph[0238], the reference describes storing the data as a trend (i.e., as a line, as claimed).). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili, Hicks, Kamamoto, and Deaderick to store time and string data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili, Hicks, Kamamoto, and Deaderick to efficiently automate identification of seasonal frequency (Deaderick: paragraph[0003]).
Claim 17
As to claim 17, the combination of Kornmeier, Shalikashvili, Hicks, and Kamamoto discloses all the elements in claim 16, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further cause the machine to generate the index by:
determining a start time, an end time, a sampling interval indicating a frequency of data samples taken between the start time and the end time; and
storing the start time, the end time, and the interval as a line.
However, Deaderick discloses wherein the instructions further cause the machine to generate the index by:
determining a start time, an end time, a sampling interval indicating a frequency of data samples taken between the start time and the end time(paragraph[0238], the reference describes determining time series data (i.e., start time and end time, as claimed) and frequency of a period (i.e., sampling interval, as claimed).); and
storing the start time, the end time, and the interval as a line(paragraph[0237]-paragraph[0238], the reference describes storing the data as a trend (i.e., as a line, as claimed).). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili, Hicks, Kamamoto, and Deaderick to store time and string data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili, Hicks, Kamamoto, and Deaderick to efficiently automate identification of seasonal frequency (Deaderick: paragraph[0003]).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kornmeier et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2021/0271675; hereinafter: Kornmeier) in view of Shalikashvili et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0063814; hereinafter: Shalikashvili) and further in view of Hicks et al. U.S. Patent (12,657,196; hereinafter: Hicks) and further in view of Kamamoto et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2021/0233549; hereinafter: Kamamoto) and further in view of Deaderick et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2025/0315360; hereinafter: Deaderick)
Claims 10
As to claim 10, Kornmeier discloses a system for processing storage system monitoring data, comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions (paragraph[0048], the reference describes instructions stored in memory.); and
a processor configured to execute the instructions stored in the memory to (paragraph[0048], the reference describes using a processor to execute the instructions.):
split received storage system monitoring data into signal data and time information (Figure 1A, paragraph[0018], the reference describes the data being split into a signal and time structure.);
pre-process the signal data to perform a statistical analysis on the signal data(paragraph[0007], the reference describes retrieving and processing network data for data analysis.).
Kornmeier does not appear to explicitly discloses select a first of a plurality compressions algorithm based on a data type identified in the statistical analysis on the signal data;
compress the signal data using the first compression algorithm to generate compressed storage system monitoring data;
generate an index into the compressed storage system monitoring data from the time information to locate data samples in the compressed storage system monitoring data by:
determining a start time, an end time and a sampling interval indicating a frequency of data samples taken between the start time and the end time; and
storing the start time, the end time, and the interval as a line; and
generate one or more files to store the compressed storage system monitoring data and the index.
However, Shalikashvili discloses select a first of a plurality compressions algorithm based on a data type identified in the statistical analysis on the signal data (paragraph[0081] and paragraph[0086], the reference describes using the best compression algorithm from a list of compression algorithms based on the type of data.);
compress the signal data using the first compression algorithm to generate compressed storage system monitoring data (paragraph[0087], the reference describes compressing the data.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili to determine the best compression algorithm to use based on data type which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili to efficiently provide machine language-powered compression strategy selection (Shalikashvili: paragraph[0007]).
The combination of Kornmeier and Shalikashvili do not appear to explicitly disclose generate an index into the compressed storage system monitoring data from the time information to locate data samples in the compressed storage system monitoring data by:
determining a start time, an end time and a sampling interval indicating a frequency of data samples taken between the start time and the end time; and
storing the start time, the end time, and the interval as a line; and
generate one or more files to store the compressed storage system monitoring data and the index.
However, Hicks discloses generate an index into the compressed storage system monitoring data from the time information to locate data samples in the compressed storage system monitoring data by(column 10, lines 26-39, the reference describes generating an index of time series data from event data (i.e., storage system monitoring data, as claimed).):
determining a start time, an end time and a sampling interval indicating a frequency of data samples taken between the start time and the end time(column 39, lines 7-16, the reference describes capturing a start time and end time of data points.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili and Hicks to store timeseries index date which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili and Hicks to efficiently store data and facilitate efficient retrieval and analysis of those data items at a later time (Hicks: column 1, lines 35-39).
The combination of Kornmeier, Shalikashvili, and Hicks do not appear to storing the start time, the end time, and the interval as a line; and
generate one or more files to store the compressed storage system monitoring data and the index.
However, Kamamoto discloses generate one or more files to store the compressed storage system monitoring data and the index(paragraph[0043], the reference describes outputting the data.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili, Hicks, and Kamamoto to compress signal data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili, Hicks, and Kamamoto to efficiently convert sound into a sound closer to a natural sound by pitch (Kamamoto: paragraph[0002]).
The combination of Kornmeier, Shalikashvili, Hicks, and Kamamoto do not appear to explicitly disclose storing the start time, the end time, and the interval as a line;
However, Deaderick discloses storing the start time, the end time, and the interval as a line (paragraph[0237]-paragraph[0238], the reference describes storing the data as a trend (i.e., as a line, as claimed).). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili, Hicks, Kamamoto, and Deaderick to store time and string data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili, Hicks, Kamamoto, and Deaderick to efficiently automate identification of seasonal frequency (Deaderick: paragraph[0003]).
Claim 11
As to claim 11, the combination of Kornmeier, Shalikashvili, Hicks, Kamamoto and Deaderick discloses all the elements in claim 10, as noted above, and Kamamoto further disclose wherein the processor is further configured to pre-process the signal data by normalizing the signal data (paragraph[0030], the reference describes normalizing the signal data.).
Claim 12
As to claim 12, the combination of Kornmeier, Shalikashvili, Hicks, Kamamoto and Deaderick discloses all the elements in claim 10, as noted above, and Kamamoto further disclose wherein:
pre-processing the signal data includes:
dividing the signal data into segments, wherein each of the segments includes 2N samples, where N is an integer(paragraph[0043], the reference describes placing the signal in frames (i.e., segments, as claimed). The Examiner interprets the N as zero which equal 1 sample.); and
performing the statistical analysis on each of the segments(paragraph[0044], the reference describes analyzing the signal.);
select the compression algorithm by selecting a compression algorithm for each segment based on the statistical analysis for each segment (paragraph[0026], the reference describes compressing the signal frames.); and
compress the signal data by compressing the signal data of each segment using the selected compression algorithm for each segment (paragraph[0026], the reference describes compressing the signal frames.).
Claim 13
As to claim 13, the combination of Kornmeier, Shalikashvili, Hicks, Kamamoto and Deaderick discloses all the elements in claim 10, as noted above, and Kamamoto further disclose wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data are similar, the processor is further configured to select the compression algorithm by selecting a basic mathematical formula (paragraph[0026], the reference describes using a function formula.).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kornmeier et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2021/0271675; hereinafter: Kornmeier) in view of Shalikashvili et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0063814; hereinafter: Shalikashvili) and further in view of Hicks et al. U.S. Patent (12,657,196; hereinafter: Hicks) and further in view of Kamamoto et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2021/0233549; hereinafter: Kamamoto) and further in view of Deaderick et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2025/0315360; hereinafter: Deaderick) and further in view of Abdellatif et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2019/0319642; hereinafter: Abdellatif)
Claim 14
As to claim 14, the combination of Kornmeier, Shalikashvili, Hicks, Kamamoto, and Deaderick discloses all the elements in claim 10, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data cross a zero line multiple times, the processor is further configured to select the compression algorithm by selecting a Fast Fourier Transform.
However, Abdellatif discloses wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data cross a zero line multiple times, the processor is further configured to select the compression algorithm by selecting a Fast Fourier Transform (paragraph[0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili, Hicks, Kamamoto, Deaderick, and Abdellatif to use a Fast Fourier transform which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili, Hicks, Kamamoto, Deaderick, and Abdellatif to efficiently reform the data streams (Abdellatif: paragraph[0002]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kornmeier et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2021/0271675; hereinafter: Kornmeier) in view of Shalikashvili et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0063814; hereinafter: Shalikashvili) and further in view of Hicks et al. U.S. Patent (12,657,196; hereinafter: Hicks) and further in view of Kamamoto et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2021/0233549; hereinafter: Kamamoto) and further in view of Deaderick et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2025/0315360; hereinafter: Deaderick) and further in view of Sasaki U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0104397; hereinafter: Sasaki)
Claim 15
As to claim 15, the combination of Kornmeier, Shalikashvili, Hicks, Kamamoto, and Deaderick discloses all the elements in claim 10, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data are noisy, the processor is further configured to select the compression algorithm by:
selecting a candidate compression algorithm from a predetermined library of candidate compression algorithms;
applying the selected candidate compression algorithm to determine whether the selected candidate compression algorithm achieves a threshold compression ratio;
on a condition that the selected candidate compression algorithm achieves a threshold compression ratio, selecting the candidate compression algorithm as the compression algorithm;
on a condition that the selected candidate compression algorithm does not achieve the threshold compression ratio, selecting a different candidate compression algorithm from the predetermined library; and
on a condition that all candidate compression algorithms in the predetermined library have been applied, selecting the compression algorithm includes selecting an audio compression algorithm.
However, Sasaki discloses wherein on a condition that the statistical analysis indicates that data values in the signal data are noisy, the processor is further configured to select the compression algorithm by:
selecting a candidate compression algorithm from a predetermined library of candidate compression algorithms (paragraph[0004], the reference describes selecting a specific comprising algorithm based on a threshold.);
applying the selected candidate compression algorithm to determine whether the selected candidate compression algorithm achieves a threshold compression ratio(paragraph[0004], the reference describes selecting a specific comprising algorithm based on a threshold. The reference uses the compression ratio.);
on a condition that the selected candidate compression algorithm achieves a threshold compression ratio, selecting the candidate compression algorithm as the compression algorithm(paragraph[0004], the reference describes selecting a specific comprising algorithm based on a threshold. The reference uses the compression ratio. The Examiner interprets the condition limitations as optional.);
on a condition that the selected candidate compression algorithm does not achieve the threshold compression ratio, selecting a different candidate compression algorithm from the predetermined library(paragraph[0004], the reference describes selecting a specific comprising algorithm based on a threshold. The reference uses the compression ratio. The Examiner interprets the condition limitations as optional. The Examiner interprets the compression algorithm achieving the threshold.); and
on a condition that all candidate compression algorithms in the predetermined library have been applied, selecting the compression algorithm includes selecting an audio compression algorithm (paragraph[0004], the reference describes selecting a specific comprising algorithm based on a threshold. The reference uses the compression ratio. The Examiner interprets the condition limitations as optional. The Examiner interprets only one compression algorithm has been applied.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili, Hicks, Kamamoto, Deaderick, and Sasaki to use a compression algorithm based on the threshold which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Kornmeier with the teachings of Shalikashvili, Hicks, Kamamoto, Deaderick, and Sasaki to efficiently reduce a data amount of times-series data that change continuously over time so as to user the data (Sasaki: paragraph[0002]).
Final Action
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAUNE A CONYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3552. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm EST. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached on (571) 270-0474. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024
