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
This communication is in response to the application filed 26 May 2026. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13-15 and 17- 20 are amended. Claims 4, 12 and 16 are canceled. Claims 21-23 have been added. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-15 and 17-23 are pending. Examiner withdraws the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter. The remaining rejections are as stated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-15 and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanam et al (US 20200241788 A1), hereinafter “Narayanam” in view of Banerjee (US 20140157363 A1) hereinafter, “Banerjee”.
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 18, Narayanam discloses an apparatus and a corresponding method of application-driven storage workload optimization (abstract), comprising:
a computer processor (figure 4, element 16 and ¶ 0039); and
a computer memory operatively coupled to the computer processor, the computer memory having disposed within it computer program instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the apparatus to carry out the steps of (figure 4, element 28 and ¶ 0039) comprising:
receiving, by a storage system, a storage management indication provided by an application, wherein the storage system processes one or more workloads for the application (abstract and ¶¶ 0002-0005); and
adjusting/applying, based on the storage management indication, at least one configuration within the storage system (abstract, figure 1 and ¶¶ 0002-0004, 0020, 0024 and 0032).
Narayanam fails to explicitly teach, a storage management indication having a policy associated with security requirements associated with a workload provided by an application.
Banerjee teaches a storage management indication having a policy associated with security requirements associated with a workload (abstract and ¶¶ [0027, 0033-0046 and 0062-0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Narayanam to incorporate a storage management indication having a policy associated with security requirements associated with a workload provided by an application, as taught by Banerjee, since both systems are concerned with “intelligent storage placement and configuration based on application or workload attributes” that will enhance the efficiency of the system by satisfying compliance and data protection (performance and security policies).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Narayanam discloses the storage management indication includes one or more quality of service requirements for the one or more workloads processed by the storage system, the one or more quality of service requirements comprising one or more of a latency requirement, a bandwidth requirement, or a retention requirement (abstract and ¶¶ 0002-0004, 0021-0023 and 0029).
Regarding claims 3, 15 and 21, Narayanam discloses the storage management indication comprises a workload priority value that specifies a priority of processing the one or more workloads relative to other workloads (¶¶ 0025-0036).
Regarding claims 5, 17 and 22, Narayanam discloses the storage management indication includes a storage tier/storage type specified for data associated with the one or more workloads (abstract and ¶¶ 0002-0005, 0027-0032).
Regarding claims 6 and 23, Narayanam discloses the storage management indication comprises one or more attributes of a dataset associated with the one or more workloads, the one or more attributes comprising one or more of a size of the dataset, a type of the dataset, or a structural attribute of the dataset (¶¶ 0028-0036).
Regarding claim 7, Narayanam discloses the step of receiving the storage management indication as part of metadata of an input/output (I/O) operation sent by the application (abstract, figure 2 and ¶¶ 0002-0005, 0032-0035).
Regarding claim 8, Narayanam discloses the step of receiving the storage management indication as a characteristic of a dataset separately from an input/output (I/O) operation sent by the application (abstract and ¶¶ 0002-0005, 0032-0035).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Narayanam discloses the step of analyzing one or more components of a request for workload processing by the application; and identifying, from the one or more components, the storage management indication (abstract and ¶¶ 0002-0005, 0032-0035).
Regarding claim 10, Narayanam discloses the step of changing a workload priority value for a particular workload that is being processed by the storage system (¶¶ 0032-0038).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Narayanam discloses the step of changing a configuration of a storage component or storage device of the storage system (¶¶ 0032-0038).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 26 May 2026 have been fully considered. Applicants’ amendments and arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 are deemed to be persuasive and the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter is withdrawn. Applicants’ arguments with respect to the 35 USC § 102 rejection have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hani Kazimi whose telephone number is (571) 272-6745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. 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.
Respectfully Submitted
/HANI M KAZIMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights