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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/11/2024 was considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 10-11 and 19-20 are rejected 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. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 10 and 19, the specification does not describe the claimed tuples or the specific tuple structure. The specification only mentions the term.
Claims 11 and 20, the specification does not describe how accuracy is being measured, how the claimed threshold is determined or how re-training is triggered.
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 1-20 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 1 and 13, it is unclear why the claimed method/medium predicts disk usage percentages and associated predicted times by a model when these are being obtained in the previously claimed step. Clarification is required.
Claims 6 and 17, it is unclear what is being referred to as “live data”. The term is not clearly defined. Clarification is required.
Claims 7 and 17, the claims state that the quiet time is between a time at which the size of the live data reaches a threshold size plus a buffer. However, the specification does not provide details of said buffer or how its being applied to the determination of the quiet time. Clarification is required.
Claims 11 and 20, the claimed accuracy threshold renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what applicant intends to claim. No metric for accuracy nor the method for determining such accuracy is being provided. The term does not appear to have boundaries.
Claims 2-5, 8-10, 12,14-16, 18-19 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 Liu et al. [20250110726] in view of Karadigudda et al. [US 12,160,510] .
Claim 1, Liu et al. teaches a method comprising: obtaining disk performance data and time data from a storage system, wherein the disk performance data includes a disk usage percentage related to the time data; predicting predicted disk usage percentages and associated predicted times by a model [par. 0079]; determining a quiet period from the predicted disk usage percentages and predicted times [idle period, par. 0079, 0075]; and performing an operation during the quiet period [par. 0075]. Liu 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 Liu 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, Liu et al. in view of Karadigudda et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the disk performance data comprises time series disk usage percentage data and the time data comprises time series time data, wherein the disk usage percentage data corresponds to an ingest rate [Liu par. 0076].
Claim 3, Liu 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 [variation over time of predicted disk usage, par. 0076].
Claim 4, Liu 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, Liu 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, Liu 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 [par. 0075].
Claim 9, Liu 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 10, Liu et al. in view of Karadigudda et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the model is trained using tuples, the tuples including a disk name, a timestamp, and an ingest rate, wherein predictions are based on an input that includes tuples [schematic 400, par. 0076].
Claim 12, Liu 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 19 is rejected using the same rationale as claims 10 and 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li [US 9,336,092]; Secure Data Deduplication. See Abstract.
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