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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/19/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant is requested to explain what “known task type” means. In other words, what “knows” the task type or what is the task type “known” by? What does it mean for the task type to be “known”? How is the “task type” related to the “computer-executable job” recited in claim 1? In other words, is the “task” the same or different than the “job” and if so how? For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation to read on the prior art cited below. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement because the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amendment filed on 03/19/2026 introduces new matter into the claims. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “representation of a recommended action to reconfigure a first data storage node of a plurality of storage nodes by creating or deleting an identified volume of storage” in the independent claims. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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, 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, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 2022/0350966) in view of Swartz et al. (US 2007/0180509) (hereinafter Swartz).
As per claim 1, Thomas primarily teaches the invention as claimed including a method comprising:
transmitting, from a first computer to an element manager computer, a non-executable textual representation of a recommended action to reconfigure a first data storage node of a plurality of data storage nodes ([0025] computing component receives, from a network device, information of grammar data used by the network device. The grammar data may be stored or encapsulated in a storage and may include a library of settings, functionalities, protocols, and/or commands supported by the network device, parameters that may be inputted into the commands or otherwise used in a configuration of the network device, and particular rules such as syntactical rules of the commands and the parameters. The grammar data may be in a format of raw data and nonexecutable text. The grammar data may capture the features and/or capabilities of a network configuration; [0029]-[0030] use machine learning to suggest configuration commands based on inferred intent; and [0041] recognize certain patterns or trends of particular features of a configuration that is typically deployed by a particular user under particular network conditions and suggest those features);
the element manager computer using the non-executable textual recommendation to generate a computer-executable job ([0034] generate JSON schema in a file from the grammar data and execute the file to configure leaf switch uplink ports to a spine and downlink ports to servers in a leaf-spine architecture and [0038]-[0039] file includes JSON scheme generated from grammar data and execute file, and generate file to execute or deploy a network configuration); and
executing the computer-executable job to implement the recommended action on the first data storage node ([0034] generate JSON schema in a file from the grammar data and execute the file to configure leaf switch uplink ports to a spine and downlink ports to servers in a leaf-spine architecture and [0038]-[0039] file includes JSON scheme generated from grammar data and execute file, and generate file to execute or deploy a network configuration).
Thomas does not explicitly teach reconfigure a first data storage node of a plurality of data storage nodes by creating or deleting an identified volume of storage.
However, Swartz teaches reconfigure a first data storage node of a plurality of data storage nodes by creating or deleting an identified volume of storage ([0882] logical volume configuration dialog may calculate and display the recommended configuration for the creation of a logical volume, which may comprise, for example, deleting partitions containing empty i.e., recently formatted filesystems, creating new partitions according to parameters which maximize the utilizable storage capacity of each disk drive);
Swartz and Thomas are both concerned with hardware configurations in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thomas in view of Swartz because it would provide advanced options for allowing more advanced users to create a custom logical volume configuration including calculating and displaying a recommended configuration for the creation of a logical volume, which may comprise, for example, creating new partitions according to parameters which maximize the utilizable storage capacity of each disk drive.
As per claim 4, Thomas further teaches the first computer transmitting essential properties associated with the recommended action as part of the non-executable textual representation ([0022] grammar file may include commands or definitions supported by the network device, in a nonexecutable format, together with variables, such as parameters, inputs, and/or data, included within the commands or definitions. The variables may be required in order for the commands or definitions to be executed as part of a particular configuration. The grammar file may identify formats, requirements, or other constraints of the variables. The grammar file may further include exemplary, recommended or required formats in which the preferred servers are to be inputted or incorporated).
As per claim 8, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Swartz in view of Lamberts et al. (US 2022/0385672) (hereinafter Lamberts).
As per claim 2, Thomas in view of Swartz do not explicitly teach the first computer transmitting a human-readable textual description of the recommended action as part of the non-executable textual representation.
However, Lamberts teaches the first computer transmitting a human-readable textual description of the recommended action as part of the non-executable textual representation ([0027] hosts may transform binary error data from a data storage device into a human-readable, non-executable, secure format before transmission outside of the data center and [0037] data to be analyzed is just that, in a human-readable non-executable form for transmission across the data center).
Lamberts and Thomas are both concerned with hardware configurations in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thomas in view of Swartz in view of Lamberts because it would provide a way of exchanging information between data storage devices (DSDs) within a secure data center and an external fleet health manager (FHM) application includes querying one or more DSDs for data to be analyzed, including providing a unique query identifier, whereby a particular DSD responsively provides a device identifier identifying itself, a random key code for authentication and integrity purposes, the data to be analyzed, and the query identifier for the FHM application to verify. The FHM application can then digitally sign a corrective action payload, using the key code from the particular DSD, including the query identifier and the device identifier and a recommended corrective action, and transmit the signed corrective action payload to the data center for application to the particular DSD, whereby the DSD can execute pre-defined fundamental repair action operation(s) corresponding to the corrective action for in-situ repair.
As per claim 9, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Swartz in view of Lamberts in view of DeGroote et al. (US 7,076,763) (hereinafter DeGroote).
As per claim 3, Thomas in view of Swartz in view of Lamberts do not explicitly teach the first computer transmitting a top-level Java class of a known task type associated with the recommended action as part of the non-executable textual representation.
However, DeGroote teaches the first computer transmitting a top-level Java class of a known task type associated with the recommended action as part of the non-executable textual representation (col. 9, ll. 24-35 top level Operation class contains Java methods common to all operations, and methods which must be included in operation subclasses e.g., abstract methods. The common methods may include class instance constructors and methods to return operations given the operation name and type. A method to return operations may create new operations or return cached operations. The abstract methods may include a method to compute an operation and a method to return the type of operation).
DeGroote and Thomas are both concerned with Java/Javascript and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thomas in view of Swartz in view of Lamberts in view of DeGroote because it would provide a way to generate live components for use on target systems, wherein the target systems may include browsers and embedded systems. Preferably, this system will be capable of operating on a multitude of data types (numeric and non-numeric), be useable by non-programmer developers, and produce code that is efficient, small, and fast. One advantage is that the resulting system could be useable by non-programmer application developers, scale the live components to produce efficient code that is small and fast, and that a live component description file may use standard file formats such as XML.
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Swartz in view of Lamberts in view of DeGroote in view of Rodrigues et al. (US 8,443,375) (hereinafter Rodrigues as previously cited).
As per claim 5, Thomas in view of Swartz in view of Lamberts in view of DeGroote do not explicitly teach the element manager computer instantiating an empty task object based on the top-level Java class and partially populating the empty task object based on the essential properties to create a partially populated task object.
However, Rodrigues teaches the element manager computer instantiating an empty task object based on the top-level Java class (col. 3, ll. 8-9 create stack for holding empty data-carrying objects) and partially populating the empty task object based on the essential properties to create a partially populated task object (col. 3, ll. 19-43 partially populate object based on request data).
Rodrigues and Thomas are both concerned with Java/Javascript and are therefore combinable/modifiable Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thomas in view of Swartz in view of Lamberts in view of DeGroote in view of Rodrigues because in a case where filling the data carrying object with data is processor intensive or time consuming, a first thread may check for space in the queue before filling the object with data in order to ensure that the process is not held up doing this if the object is to be discarded. There is however a possibility that space becomes available in the queue while the data carrying object is being populated. Checking for space after populating the object, may ensure that a higher portion of entries are processed by the second queue, but may reduce the operating rate of the first thread. If the first thread is a web server working thread and the second thread a logging thread, the former case may be appropriate where performance is critical, and the latter where a higher logging rate is desirable, but a 100% logging rate is not needed. Similarly, when different parts of the data to be inserted into the data carrying object are available at different times, the first thread may check for available space in the queue before or after any data insertion.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Swartz in view of Lamberts in view of DeGroote in view of Rodrigues in view of Borowiec et al. (US 9,300,660) (hereinafter Borowiec as previously cited).
As per claim 6, Swartz teaches the element manager computer presenting the human-readable textual description of the recommended action ([0882] logical volume configuration dialog may calculate and display the recommended configuration for the creation of a logical volume).
Thomas in view of Swartz in view of Lamberts in view of DeGroote in view of Rodrigues do not explicitly teach generating a token with user authorization credentials.
However, Borowiec teaches generating a token with user authorization credentials (abstract generating a token representing the authentication of the user credentials and the authorized access privileges).
Borowiec and Thomas are both concerned with user interfaces in a computing environment and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thomas in view of Swartz in view of Lamberts in view of DeGroote in view of Rodrigues in view of Borowiec because it would provide for a storage array access module that may operate in such a way that the module does not appear directly to a user through the client-side array services module. That is, a user, if authorized, my access various services provided by the storage array services provider through utilization of the storage array access module, even without knowledge of the storage array access module's operation. Once a user receives a token from the cloud-based security module, a session may be instantiated between the user and the storage array such that the user need not provide credentials upon each subsequent access request. That is, a user may be authenticated and authorized once by the cloud-based security module to instantiate a session, then the user may proceed to make multiple access requests without having to be reauthenticated or reauthorized until the session ends.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Swartz in view of Lamberts in view of DeGroote in view of Rodrigues in view of Borowiec in view of Liderman et al. (US 2019/0068568) (hereinafter Liderman).
As per claim 7, Thomas in view of Swartz in view of Lamberts in view of DeGroote in view of Rodrigues in view of Borowiec do not explicitly teach the element manager computer generating the executable job by adding the partially populated task object to a job structure and using the token to provide authorization.
However, Liderman teaches the element manager computer generating the executable job by adding the partially populated task object to a job structure ([0044] the partially populated device profile can include a device profile, such as an XML, data structure or document, that includes information necessary to configure at least one setting of the client device) and using the token to provide authorization ([0043] personal identity verification application can act as its own keychain and can maintain derived credentials necessary to sign, decrypt, or authenticate requests on behalf of other client applications).
Liderman and Thomas are both concerned with hardware configurations in a computing environment and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thomas in view of Swartz in view of Lamberts in view of DeGroote in view of Rodrigues in view of Borowiec in view of Liderman because it would provide a way to handle the generation of device profiles with credentials using distributed key management. For instance, derived credentials generated based on an authentication performed using a third-party software development kit can be used to generate device profiles that include the derived credentials. Accordingly, an application can be described as securely generating a single set of client certificates on a client device, where these credentials continue to be utilized securely as part of the device profiles. For instance, each time a new device profile is published by the management service, the application can be utilized to insert a credential in the credential payload. Thus, multiple device profiles can be generated that include a single certificate or other credential. To this end, the management service is optimized as the number of certificates generated is greatly reduced, which in turns saves bandwidth, network storage, and operational costs.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Sedlacek et al. (US 2020/0026637) in at least [0022] disclose classes/types of objects and top- level Java classes.
Sullivan (US 6,453,464) in at least col. 6, 11. 3-21 disclose a separate Java top-level class and a Java type object/class name.
Wilshinsky et al. (US 2019/0182115) disclose optimization of distributed data storge systems.
Tran et al. (US 2024/0004908) disclose a content publisher recommender.
Papapanagiotou et al. (US 2017/0193031) disclose performing data reconciliation in distributed data store systems.
Jain et al. (US 2002/0073091) disclose XML to object translation.
Dain et al. (US 2020/0050382) disclose deploying a validated data storage deployment.
Chandel et al. (US 2014/0188926) disclose providing search suggestions.
Canney et al. (US 12,026,740) disclose tracking performance of recommended content across multiple content outlets.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at the following telephone number: (571) 272-4215. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 March 20, 2026