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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/28/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 have been amended. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent claims. Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and claims 12-19 depend from claim 11. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1-10 are to a process comprising a series of steps, clams 11-19 to a system /apparatus, and claim 20 to manufacture ,which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
Claim 1 recites:
1.(Currently Amended) A method, comprising:
(i) receiving a set of user requirements associated with one or more storage systems;
(ii) determining, based on the set of user requirements, a set of storage system configurations by executing processing logic that evaluates storage compacity and performance characteristics across a plurality of data source;
(iii) generating, based on the set of storage system configurations, a structured configuration representation comprising machine-readable configuration data and visual rendering data describing physical and logical attributes of the set of storage system configurations; and
(iv) transmitting data comprising the structured configuration representation to one or more client devices.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1-20 recite abstract idea.
The highlighted limitations comprising , “determining, based on the set of user requirements, a set of storage system configurations that evaluates storage compacity and performance characteristics across a plurality of data source; generating, based on the set of storage system configurations, a structured configuration representation comprising machine-readable configuration data and visual rendering data describing physical and logical attributes of the set of storage system configurations”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation can be carried out both manually as a part of performance by mind using pen and paper and also using computer. Generating structured configuration machine readable data and visual data describing physical and logical attributes can be done manually, because the machine readable data, such as JSON, XML, or CSV, can be written in text format manually. Similarly, generating visual rendering data of physical, such as drives and cables, and logical attributes, such as volumes, mapping and RAID –redundant array of independent disks] can be done manually. Though using computer can provide higher speed and scalability to these steps, the concept is not new as these steps can be carried out manually. Executing these steps do not necessitate inextricable tie to computer technology. Therefore, the limitations of claim 1 fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Since the other two independent claims 11 and 20 recite similar limitations, they are analyzed on the same basis as reciting an abstract idea.
Thus, claims 1, 11, and 20 with their respective dependent claims 2-10, 12-19 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1-20: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim 1 recites the additional elements of ” (i) receiving a set of user requirements associated with one or more storage systems; (ii) determining, based on the set of user requirements, a set of storage system configurations by executing processing logic that evaluates storage compacity and performance characteristics across a plurality of data source; (iii) generating, based on the set of storage system configurations, a structured configuration representation comprising machine-readable configuration data and visual rendering data describing physical and logical attributes of the set of storage system configurations; and (iv) transmitting data comprising the structured configuration representation to one or more client devices.
The limitations in steps “(i) receiving a set of user requirements associated with one or more storage systems; and (iv) transmitting data comprising information providing the multimedia content..”, are mere data gathering and transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and transmitting. See MPEP 2106.05. The limitations recite using computers implementing these steps. The computer devices are recited at a high level of generality and are used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of receiving and transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In steps “(ii) determining, based on the set of user requirements, a set of storage system configurations by executing processing logic that evaluates storage compacity and performance characteristics across a plurality of data source; and (iii) generating, based on the set of storage system configurations, a structured configuration representation comprising machine-readable configuration data and visual rendering data describing physical and logical attributes of the set of storage system configurations”, as recited, are performed by a computer. However, the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Since the other two independent claims 11 and 20 recite similar limitations, they are analyzed on the same basis as directed to an abstract idea.
The limitations in the dependent claims 2-9, 12-18 as drafted, relate to expanding the scope of claims1 directed to mental processes, insignificant extra-solution activities or merely describing the multimedia content which do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations in claims 6-7, and 16 recite using machine learning models in a very nominal manner for updating the multimedia content and generating answers to the one or more questions. The updating multimedia and generating answers to questions are mere manual activity and can be performed by human mind using pen and paper. Here, the use of machine learning models is recited without providing specific details to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the machine learning models function. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “updating the multimedia” and “providing answers to questions” and do not include any details about how the “updating” and “generating answers” are accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of “using machine learning models” in limitations of claims 6-7 and 16 also merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “using machine learning models” limits the identified judicial exceptions ““updating” and “generating answers”,” this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (neural networks) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Limitations in claims 10 and 19 recite encrypting a portion of the multimedia content comprising pricing information for the set of storage system configurations, based on a security credential, which is a generic computer function as the claim limitations do not recite any specific steps of carrying out encryption function.
Thus, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claims i1-20 are directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Step 2A=Yes. Claims 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claim recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 1-20 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Additional elements directed to receiving and providing data were both found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering/transmitting/outputting/ displaying/presenting data . However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). ). The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere data gathering/ transmitting/ outputting/displaying/presenting/ data steps using a generic computer are well-understood, routine, conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving, acquiring, and transmitting steps are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Even when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-20 represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Thus, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026, see page 9-11, s have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, when analyzed per Step 2a and Step 2B for following reasons:
Step 2A, Prong One:
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments, “ As amended, independent claim 1 does not merely recite a result, a recommendation, or an offer. Rather, the claims require computer-implemented processing that produces a concrete configuration artifact that includes machine-readable data usable by computing systems and visual renderings tied to the physical and logical structure of storage hardware. Such operations are not capable of being practically performed in the human mind, nor do they constitute a fundamental economic practice or a mental process under MPEP §2106.04(a). The Office Action's assertion that "multimedia content" can be generated manually using pen and paper ignores the claim language requiring a structured configuration representation that includes machine-readable configuration data describing physical and logical storage attributes. A human may describe a system in prose, but a human cannot practically generate machine-readable configuration data suitable for computational consumption, nor can a human practically evaluate storage capacity and performance characteristics across a plurality of disparate data sources as required by the claims. Accordingly, the amended independent claims do not recite a judicial exception, and the § 101 analysis should conclude at Step 2A, Prong One.”; because as required by Step 2A, Prong One analysis the limitations of claim 1, for example, do “set forth” and “describe” an abstract idea. The limitations comprising , “”determining, based on the set of user requirements, a set of storage system configurations that evaluates storage compacity and performance characteristics across a plurality of data source; generating, based on the set of storage system configurations, a structured configuration representation comprising machine-readable configuration data and visual rendering data describing physical and logical attributes of the set of storage system configurations”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation can be carried out both manually as a part of performance by mind using pen and paper and also using computer. Generating structured configuration machine readable data and visual data describing physical and logical attributes can be done manually, because the machine readable data, such as JSON, XML, or CSV, which can be written in text format can be done manually. Similarly, generating visual rendering data of physical, such as drives and cables, and logical attributes, such as volumes, mapping and RAID –redundant array of independent disks] can be done manually. Though using computer can provide higher speed and scalability to these steps, the concept is not new as these steps can be carried out manually. Executing these steps do not necessitate inextricable tie to computer technology. As analyzed above.
Yes, the claims do recite “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments, “ Even assuming, arguendo, that the claims recite an abstract idea, the claims as a whole are integrated into a practical application. The independent claims do not merely gather, analyze, and present information in the abstract. Rather, they apply processing logic to technical storage system data from multiple sources to generate a structured configuration representation that includes machine-readable configuration data and visual rendering data describing physical and logical attributes of storage systems, and then transmit that representation to client devices. This is a concrete technological application that improves how storage system configurations are generated, represented, and communicated. The claims are directed to producing a configuration artifact that can be consumed by computing systems, not merely viewed by a human. The structured configuration representation is not incidental output. It is the central technical output of the claimed method, and it constrains how the alleged abstract idea is applied. Contrary to the Office Action, the claims do not simply "organize human activity" or "convey information." They recite specific technical processing steps applied to storage system data to generate a machine-usable configuration representation tied to real storage hardware characteristics. This is precisely the type of integration into a practical application recognized as patent-eligible under MPEP §2106.04(d), because the claims do not recite any technical improvement. Step 2A, Prong Two part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). For example, the claim 1 recites the additional elements being performed by a generic computer/processor ” (i) receiving a set of user requirements associated with one or more storage systems; (ii) determining, based on the set of user requirements, a set of storage system configurations by executing processing logic that evaluates storage compacity and performance characteristics across a plurality of data source; (iii) generating, based on the set of storage system configurations, a structured configuration representation comprising machine-readable configuration data and visual rendering data describing physical and logical attributes of the set of storage system configurations; and (iv) transmitting data comprising the structured configuration representation to one or more client devices.”. The steps (i) and iv, as analyzed above, recite merely gathering and transmitting data which are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g. The computer/processor is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to implement generic steps. MPEP 2106.05(f). In steps (ii) and (iii) a computer is used to perform them [Though claim 1 does not recite using a processor/computer, the other two independent claims 11 and 20 do recite using a computer to perform such steps]. The computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B:
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments, “ The inventive concept of the amended independent claims lies in the combination of limitations that require: (i) evaluating storage capacity and performance characteristics across a plurality of data sources, (ii) generating a structured configuration representation that includes machine-readable configuration data and visual rendering data describing physical and logical attributes, and (iii) transmitting that structured configuration representation to client devices. This ordered combination is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. The Office Action expressly acknowledges that the cited prior art does not teach or render obvious the claims "as a whole." That same analysis is relevant here. The claims do not merely automate a known manual process. They produce a new type of technical output: a structured, machine-readable configuration representation that reflects evaluated storage performance and capacity characteristics and is suitable for downstream computational use. The Examiner's reliance on cases addressing generic data transmission or generic display of information is misplaced. Here, the claims do not merely display information. They generate and transmit a structured configuration artifact that embodies evaluated technical constraints of storage systems. This constitutes significantly more than applying an abstract idea on a generic computer. “, because the limitations in combination do not recite a technical improvement. The additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and provide an inventive concept . (Step 2B: NO).
Step 2B analysis part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. The additional elements , as analyzed under Step 2A, Prong two , are at best insignificant extra- solution activity directed to mere gathering and transmitting data and instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations, “ transmitting data comprising the structured configuration representation to one or more client devices.”, is mere transmitting data, which is recited at a high level of generality being performed by a computer and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05 (f): Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
The applicant’s arguments, “ The Office Action expressly acknowledges that the cited prior art does not teach or render obvious the claims "as a whole." That same analysis is relevant here.”, are not persuasive, because the subject matter of eligibility of claims is analyzed based on Steps 2A and 2B and not on the basis of prior art, and, as analyzed above under Step 2A and Step 2B analysis, the claims are patent ineligible.
Applicant has not filed separate arguments against the dependent claims 2-10, and 12-19.
In view of the foregoing, rejection of pending claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 is sustainable and maintained.
4. Prior art discussion:
Reference claims 1, 11, and 20, the prior art of record, alone or combined neither teaches nor renders obvious the limitations, as a whole, comprising determining, based on the set of user requirements, a set of storage system configurations by executing processing logic that evaluates storage compacity and performance characteristics across a plurality of data source and generating, based on the set of storage system configurations, a structured configuration representation comprising machine-readable configuration data and visual rendering data describing physical and logical attributes of the set of storage system configurations”, in combination with the rest of the limitations. Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and claims 12-19 depend from claim 11.
5. Allowability Note: If the independent claims 1, 11, and 20 are amended to overcome 35 USC 101 rejection, the application can be placed in condition for allowance. Any new amendments would be subject to reconsideration and search.
6. Best prior art of record:
(i) Shah et al. [US 20200042403 A1, See para 0045] describes a system 400 including a remote cloud computing network 410 from a cluster system 402, and the cloud computing network 410 includes a cluster configuration device 412 to receive and/or store configuration data for the cluster system 402. The cloud computing network 410 also includes a code generator 414 used to generate machine-readable codes corresponding to stored configuration data.
(ii) Thakur et el. [US Patent 7447729 B1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 07/31/2025; see claim 1 describes configuring data storage systems to store the network data and to determine preliminary storage budgets for each of the communication network projects based on total budgets for the communications network projects, wherein the cost is determined by interacting with an operator via GUI and develops “individual cost models for the individual computer systems and storage systems that comprise storage infrastructure 110. For each computer system and storage system, network management system 114 processes the model to provide a cost per unit of storage, such as dollars per Gigabit (GB). “
(iii) DeBoer et al. [US 20180322555 A1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 07/31/2025; see paras 0013, 0024, 0025 ] describes facilitating a user to provide /input product specifications via a graphical user interface (GUI), wherein the GUI includes a plurality of design modules each providing specific product specification, customization options, and includes pricing engine configured to provide substantially real-time product pricing information according to the selected product specifications. A pricing algorithm is used to calculate product pricing dependent on specified product type, product cost, product size, product volume, product surface area, product material, product decoration type, product decoration style, product manufacturing method, and/or product color. The prices are updated based on suggested user changes to the product specifications.
(iv) Ki et al.[US 20130297907 A1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 07/31/2025; see claim 3] describes a reconfigurable storage system wherein a configuration translation component executing on a host generates feature setting for the storage device based on received user requirements.
(v) Gong et al. [US Patent 1009548 B1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 07/31/2025; see col.1, lines 15-17 , describes that users configure their storage systems based on their certain requirements of “workload, performance, capacity and cost requirements.”
(vi) Singh et al. [US patent# 11, 868, 629 B1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 07/31/2025 and having the same assignee as the instant application but with different inventive entity [see abstract ] inputting user’s requirements comprising specifications and the workload for configuring storage systems.
Foreign references:
(vii) 1. CN 114415945 A cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 07/31/2025, describes the user’s requirements of user load and then configuring the distributed storage system for the user [See pages 3 and 4, “ it needs to analyze the inherent I/O characteristics for each user load, and then configuring the distributed storage system. “ and see “a preference selection module, for selecting parameter solution from the parameter solution set according to the user requirement, using the parameter to configure the parameter of the distributed storage system.”.
NPL reference:
(viii) A. Ahadi and X. Liang, "A stand-alone hybrid renewable energy system assessment using cost optimization method," 2017 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT), Toronto, ON, Canada, 2017, pp. 376-381 extracted from IP. Com on 07/29/2026 and cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 07/31/2025 describes cost estimation for an energy storage system, wherein the energy is hybrid renewable energy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688