DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
The rejection of Claims 10-11 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn because they were cancelled.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 17, it remains unclear what is being referred to as “live data”. The term is not clearly defined. The definition of live data in terms of a backup is unclear because what is being backed up has not been identified. Additionally, the limitations “reducing towards a threshold size” is unclear because it is not understood what the threshold is of or if it refers to a previously claimed threshold. Clarification is required.
Claims 7 and 17, the limitations defined the claimed buffer in terms of the threshold size which is unclear. Additionally, the definition of the quiet time remains unclear as defined. The claimed predetermined amount is an unclear term. Clarification is required.
Claims 8-9, 18 are rejected as having the same deficiencies as their parent claims.
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-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 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 1-5, 8-10, 12-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. [20230376202] in view of Karadigudda et al. [US 12,160,510].
Claim 1, Wang et al. teaches a method comprising: obtaining actual disk performance data and actual time data from a storage system [par. 003, 0053-0054], wherein the actual disk performance data includes an actual disk usage percentage related to the actual time data [0048-0049, 0050-0051]; predicting predicted disk usage percentages and associated predicted times by a model [0003, 0018-0019, 0041]; determining a quiet period from the predicted disk usage percentages and predicted times [predicts usage of a future time period, future window, par. 003, 0028-0031, 0046]; and performing an operation during the quiet period. Wang et al. does not teach but Karadigudda et al. discloses performing an operation on a key table configured to manage keys used in the storage system, wherein each of the keys is associated with encrypted data [Abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Wang et al. with the key operations of Karadigudda et al. since performing essential operations when more bandwidth is available avoids delays when user visible operations are being performed.
Claim 2, Wang et al. in view of Karadigudda et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the actual disk performance data comprises time series disk usage percentage data and the actual time data comprises time series time data, wherein the disk usage percentage data corresponds to an ingest rate [Wang par. 0048-0051].
Claim 3, Wang et al. in view of Karadigudda et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the model is trained using historical disk usage percentages and historical times [training on historical usage values and timestamps, par. 0003, 0019, 0054-0055].
Claim 4, Wang et al. in view of Karadigudda et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the operation is a key deletion operation [Karadigudda Abstract].
Claim 5, Wang et al. in view of Karadigudda et al. discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the model is configured to identify a time when data associated with each of the keys reaches a threshold size [Karadigudda Col. 6, line 49 - Col. 7, 30].
Claim 8, Wang et al. in view of Karadigudda et al. discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the quiet period is associated with a predicted disk usage percentage that is less than a threshold disk usage percentage [predicted usage is less than threshold logic, par. 0029-0031 and 0042-0043].
Claim 9, Wang et al. in view of Karadigudda et al. discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the operation includes a garbage collection operation in the storage system, a key deletion operation [Karadigudda Abstract], and/or a key rotation operation.
Claim 12, Wang et al. in view of Karadigudda et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the operation includes deleting keys from a key table and/or reclaiming space in the storage system [Karadigudda Abstract].
Claim 13 is rejected using the same rationale as Claim 1 wherein Liu et al. discloses the claimed non-transitory storage medium [par. 0008].
Claim 14 is rejected using the same rationale as claims 2 and 3.
Claim 15 is rejected using the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 16 is rejected using the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 18 is rejected using the same rationale as claims 8 and 9.
Claim 21, Wang et al. in view of Karadigudda et al. discloses the non-transitory storage medium of claim 13, wherein the actual disk performance data includes disk statistics that are generated on a periodic basis for an in-use disk [003, 0053-0054; Wang teaches periodic sampling of performance metrics], and wherein the actual disk performance data includes at least disk busy percentage, read iops, write iops, and disk names [par. 0017-0018 and 0032-0034; resource usage metrics that fluctuate over time and system table stores identifiers for memory related metrics].
Claim 22, Wang et al. in view of Karadigudda et al. discloses the non-transitory storage medium of claim 13, wherein the model is configured to generate data that include a disk name [par. 0034-0035], a time stamp, and an ingest rate corresponding to a disk busy percentage, and wherein the time stamp represents an epoch time [par. 003, 0041, 0048-0051, 0017, 0019; use of timestamps, resource usage metrics tied to application requests; predicted usage values].
Claim 23, Wang et al. in view of Karadigudda et al. discloses the non-transitory storage medium of claim 13, wherein the model is configured to predict future patterns of disk usage and associated times, and wherein the predicted patterns are validated [par. 0003, 0041, 0045-0046; prediction of future usage patterns and validation via comparison to actual usage]
Claim 24, Wang et al. in view of Karadigudda et al. discloses the non-transitory storage medium of claim 13, wherein performing the operation includes scheduling a garbage collection operation to be performed during the quiet period [par. 0028-0031, 0041-0043, 0046], and wherein performing the operation during the quiet period lowers a load on the garbage collection operation [0017-0020].
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIDYS ROJAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4207. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am -3:00pm M-F.
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, Rocio del Mar Perez-Velez can be reached at (571) 270-5935. 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.
/MIDYS ROJAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2133
Prosecution Insights