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
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 claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 (and dependent claims 2-7) recite “A computer-implemented method, executed on a computing device, comprising: processing telemetry data associated with a small form factor pluggable (SFP) transceiver; forecasting a SFP transceiver failure associated with the SFP transceiver using a machine learning model; and performing a remedial action in response to forecasting the SFP transceiver failure associated with the SFP transceiver.”
Claims 1-7, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of “processing telemetry data associated with a small form factor pluggable (SFP) transceiver; forecasting a SFP transceiver failure associated with the SFP transceiver using a machine learning model; and performing a remedial action in response to forecasting the SFP transceiver failure associated with the SFP transceiver.”
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited “processing telemetry data associated with a small form factor pluggable (SFP) transceiver; forecasting a SFP transceiver failure associated with the SFP transceiver using a machine learning model; and performing a remedial action in response to forecasting the SFP transceiver failure associated with the SFP transceiver.”; therefore, the claims recite mental processes. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process, and thus, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of“[a] computer- implemented method” and “the method is carried out by one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions” as recited in claims 8 and 15, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 9-14 and 16-20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s Specification at [0067] and [0068] (describing that the disclosure is not limited to the disclosed implementations, but, on the contrary, is intended to cover modifications and equivalent arrangements that are within the spirit and scope of the appended claims). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 9-14 and 16-20 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea. Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chaouch et al (US 11,356,754).
Chaouch et al disclose the following claimed features:
Regarding claim 1, a computer-implemented method (Figure 4), executed on a computing device, comprising: processing telemetry data associated with a small form factor pluggable (SFP) transceiver (412); forecasting a SFP transceiver failure associated with the SFP transceiver using a machine learning model (column 6, lines 10-49); and performing a remedial action in response to forecasting the SFP transceiver failure associated with the SFP transceiver (column 6, lines 10-49).
Regarding claim 2, wherein processing the telemetry data associated with the SFP transceiver includes monitoring transmission power information associated with the SFP transceiver over a defined period of time (column 5, line 39 to column 6, line 49).
Regarding claim 3, wherein processing the telemetry data associated with the SFP transceiver includes monitoring receiver power information associated with the SFP transceiver over a defined period of time (column 5, line 39 to column 6, line 49).
Regarding claim 4, wherein forecasting the SFP transceiver failure associated with the SFP transceiver includes forecasting when the SFP transceiver performance will cross a manufacture performance threshold indicative of failure (column 5, line 39 to column 6, line 49).
Regarding claim 5, wherein forecasting the SFP transceiver failure associated with the SFP transceiver includes forecasting when the SFP transceiver will be replaced (column 5, line 39 to column 6, line 49).
Regarding claim 6, wherein performing the remedial action includes generating a recommendation to replace the SFP transceiver in advance of the forecast SFP transceiver failure (column 3, lines 1-26; column 5, line 39 to column 6, line 49).
Regarding claim 7, wherein performing the remedial action includes generating a recommendation to replace a plurality of components from a storage system including the SFP transceiver with the forecast SFP transceiver failure (column 3, lines 1-26; column 5, line 39 to column 6, line 49).
Regarding claim 8, a computer program product residing on a non-transitory computer readable medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processor (column 9, line 64 to column 10, line 3), cause the processor to perform operations (Figure 4) comprising: processing telemetry data associated with a small form factor pluggable (SFP) transceiver (412); forecasting a SFP transceiver failure associated with the SFP transceiver using a machine learning model (column 6, lines 10-49); and performing a remedial action in response to forecasting the SFP transceiver failure associated with the SFP transceiver (column 6, lines 10-49).
Regarding claim 9, wherein processing the telemetry data associated with the SFP transceiver includes monitoring transmission power information associated with the SFP transceiver over a defined period of time (column 5, line 39 to column 6, line 49).
Regarding claim 10, wherein processing the telemetry data associated with the SFP transceiver includes monitoring receiver power information associated with the SFP transceiver over a defined period of time (column 5, line 39 to column 6, line 49).
Regarding claim 11, wherein forecasting the SFP transceiver failure associated with the SFP transceiver includes forecasting when the SFP transceiver performance will cross a manufacture performance threshold indicative of failure (column 5, line 39 to column 6, line 49).
Regarding claim 12, wherein forecasting the SFP transceiver failure associated with the SFP transceiver includes forecasting when the SFP transceiver will be replaced (column 5, line 39 to column 6, line 49).
Regarding claim 13, wherein performing the remedial action includes generating a recommendation to replace the SFP transceiver in advance of the forecast SFP transceiver failure (column 5, line 39 to column 6, line 49).
Regarding claim 14, wherein performing the remedial action includes generating a recommendation to replace a plurality of components from a storage system including the SFP transceiver with the forecast SFP transceiver failure (column 3, lines 1-26; column 5, line 39 to column 6, line 49).
Regarding claim 15, a computing system (Figure 4) comprising: a memory (column 6, lines 50-62); and a processor (421) configured to process telemetry data associated with a small form factor pluggable (SFP) transceiver (412), to forecast a SFP transceiver failure associated with the SFP transceiver using a machine learning model (column 6, lines 10-49), and to perform a remedial action in response to forecasting the SFP transceiver failure associated with the SFP transceiver (column 6, lines 10-49).
Regarding claim 16, wherein processing the telemetry data associated with the SFP transceiver includes monitoring transmission power information associated with the SFP transceiver over a defined period of time (column 5, line 39 to column 6, line 49).
Regarding claim 17, wherein processing the telemetry data associated with the SFP transceiver includes monitoring receiver power information associated with the SFP transceiver over a defined period of time (column 5, line 39 to column 6, line 49).
Regarding claim 18, wherein forecasting the SFP transceiver failure associated with the SFP transceiver includes forecasting when the SFP transceiver performance will cross a manufacture performance threshold indicative of failure (column 5, line 39 to column 6, line 49).
Regarding claim 19, wherein forecasting the SFP transceiver failure associated with the SFP transceiver includes forecasting when the SFP transceiver will be replaced (column 5, line 39 to column 6, line 49).
Regarding claim 20, wherein performing the remedial action includes generating a recommendation to replace the SFP transceiver in advance of the forecast SFP transceiver failure (column 5, line 39 to column 6, line 49).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Soto et al (US 8,958,697) disclose a management of the optical layer network data communications including data link layer functions or layer functions in an OSI model. Benefits include reduction in reduced cost of network deployments from consolidation of network equipment, such as switches, and reduction in power consumed as well as enabling point-to-multipoint network connections from previously only point-to-point network connection. Magri et al (US 2022/0311512) disclose a method of identifying a fault in an optical link includes continually storing samples of a signal that represents a power of an optical signal received over the optical link. When a fault is detected on said optical link, at least one stored series of samples of the signal is retrieved. The method then includes performing a classification on the retrieved series of samples, in order to classify the series of samples as resulting from one of a plurality of predefined faults.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN H DO whose telephone number is (571)272-2143. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached on 571-272-5960. 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.
/AN H DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853