Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/11/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(c) rejection of claims 1, 6-9, 11-14, 16-20 as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 20230362172 hereinafter Mandagere have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of amended claims.
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.
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.
3. Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 11-14, 16, 19, 20, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 20230362172 hereinafter Mandagere in view of U.S. Publication No. 20240064150 hereinafter Silverstein.
As per claim 1, Mandagere discloses:
A method (para 0050 "FIG. 3 is a process for automatically managing
access policies for archived objects in accordance with some embodiments.")
comprising:
detecting, by a cloud-based monitoring system communicatively coupled to a storage system by way of a network and configured to monitor one or more metrics associated with the storage system (Fig. 1, element 112, para 0034 “Cloud-based management system 112 is configured to provide a user device 101 (e.g., a laptop, a desktop, a server, a tablet, a smartphone, etc.) the ability to access and manage storage systems 104a . . . 104n via user interface (UI) service virtualization container 113.)
one or more conditions associated with a storage system (para 0035 "UI service virtualization container 113 may receive from user device 101 a request to restore one or more objects associated with a particular archived backup snapshot and provide the request to quorum service 114.")
initiating, by the cloud-based monitoring based on the detecting the
one or more conditions, a request to perform a restricted operation with respect
to the storage system (para 0051 "In response to receiving a request for specific
data, the cloud-based management system determines whether the requested
operation is associated with a quorum policy that requires a quorum of approvals
before being allowed to be performed.");
transmitting, by the cloud-based monitoring based on the initiating of
the request, a notification associated with the request to a plurality of entities
each having authority to perform an authorization event pertaining to the
restricted operation (para 0052 "The cloud-based management system initiates a
timer that indicates when a quorum of approvals for the requested operation
needs to be received. In some embodiments, the timer is specified by an
administrator associated with an entity. In some embodiments, the timer is a
default amount of time (e.g., 30 minutes).");
detecting, by the cloud-based monitoring, that a threshold plurality of
authorization events pertaining to the restricted operation are performed by the
plurality of entities (para 0053 "At 304, it is determined whether the request for
specific data stored in the archival storage has received a quorum approval. The
cloud-based management system waits for responses from the approvers
included in the set of approvers. The cloud-based management system
determines whether the required number of approvals for the requested
operation has been received within a period of time associated with the timer. A
quorum approval has been obtained in response to a determination that the
required number of approvals for the request has been received within the period
of time associated with the timer.");
and performing, by the cloud-based monitoring based on the
detecting that the threshold plurality of authorization events are performed by the
plurality of entities, the restricted operation (para 0057 "At 310, a notification is
provided to a user device associated with the request. In response to the
notification, a user associated with the user device may cause a storage system
to initiate a restore of the one or more objects associated with the particular
archived backup snapshot.")
Mandagere does not disclose:
detecting, one or more conditions associated with a storage system and based on the one or more metrics
initiating and without user input, a request to perform a restricted operation with respect to the storage system
Silverstein discloses:
detecting, one or more conditions associated with a storage system and based on the one or more metrics (para 0055 “In an embodiment, if an authorized user 106 attempts to access a bookmark or corresponding website via the virtual browser application environment 114 outside of a time frame defined in an access control policy or as otherwise specified by a primary user 102, the virtual machine service provider 112 can automatically determine, from the applicable access control policy a graph of events that are to occur in order for the authorized user 106 to be granted access to the bookmark or corresponding website via the virtual browser application environment 114.”)
and initiating and without user input, a request to perform a restricted operation with respect to the storage system (para 0055 “As an illustrative example, a particular website may be subject to an access control policy, whereby if an authorized user 106 attempts to access the particular website using a bookmark presented on the website or web portal provided by the virtual machine service provider 112 or via the virtual browser application environment 114, an alert may be transmitted to one or more primary users 102 (e.g., a user's son and daughter, a user's financial adviser, etc.). Further, the access control policy may define one or more conditions for granting the authorized user 106 to the particular website. For example, the access control policy may specify that a minimum number of primary users 102 or other users designated in the access control policy are required to approve the authorized user's request to access the particular website. As another example, the access control policy may specify that a quorum of primary users 102 and/or other users specified in the access control policy is required in order to grant the authorized user 106 access to the website via the virtual browser application environment 114.” para 0208 “For example, the computing resources provider 1528 may provide a service, operating on service 1530 to store data for the computing device 1502 when, for example, the amount of data that the computing device 1502 exceeds the capacity of storage device 1510. In another example, the computing resources provider 1528 may provide a service to first instantiate a virtual machine (VM) on service 1532, use that VM to access the data stored on service 1532, perform one or more operations on that data, and provide a result of those one or more operations to the computing device 1502. Such operations (e.g., data storage and VM instantiation) may be referred to herein as operating “in the cloud,” “within a cloud computing environment,” or “within a hosted virtual machine environment,” and the computing resources provider 1528 may also be referred to herein as “the cloud.”)
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 the method of
Mandagere to include detecting, one or more conditions associated with a storage system and based on the one or more metrics and initiating and without user input, a request to perform a restricted operation with respect to the storage system, as taught by Silverstein.
The motivation would have been to allow users to interact with one another in a virtual browser application environment in a secure manner subject to defined policies and alerts.
As per claim 6, Mandagere in view of Silverstein discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the initiating the request is performed
automatically in response to the detecting the one or more conditions (Mandagere para 0020 and 0047).
As per claim 8, Mandagere in view of Silverstein discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising abstaining from performing the
restricted operation until the threshold plurality of authorization events are
performed by the plurality of entities (Mandagere para 0033, 0039 and 0053).
As per claim 9, Mandagere in view of Silverstein discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the restricted operation comprises an
operation with respect to a recovery dataset configured to be used by the storage
system to recover from a data corruption event within the storage system (Mandagere para 0004 and 0016).
As per claim 11, Mandagere in view of Silverstein discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the restricted operation comprises a modification of a policy that governs one or more operations performed with respect to the storage system (Mandagere para 0015).
As per claim 12, Mandagere in view of Silverstein discloses:
The method of claim 11, wherein the policy identifies the plurality of
entities. (Mandagere para 0025 and 0035).
As per claim 13, Mandagere in view of Silverstein discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the performing the restricted operation is
further based on the threshold plurality of authorization events being performed
within a predetermined amount of time (Mandagere para 0039, 0052 and 0053).
As per claim 14, Mandagere in view of Silverstein discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the detecting that the threshold plurality of
authorization events are performed by the plurality of entities comprises detecting
that the threshold plurality of authorization events are performed by a majority of
entities included in a set of entities having authorization to perform the
authorization events. (Mandagere para 0033, 0039 and 0053).
As per claim 16, Mandagere in view of Silverstein discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the performing the restricted operation
comprises directing the storage system to perform the restricted operation (Mandagere para 0057).
As per claim 19, the implementation of the method of claim 1 will execute
the system of claim 19. The claim is analyzed with respect to claim 1.
As per claim 20, the implementation of the method of claim 1 will execute
the computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer
readable (paragraph 0090) of claim 15. The claim is analyzed with respect
to claim 1.
As per claim 22, Mandagere in view of Silverstein discloses:
The cloud-based monitoring system of claim 19, wherein: the detecting the one or more conditions associated with the storage system comprises detecting a condition that indicates that additional storage space needs to be allocated to the storage system; and the request to perform the restricted operation comprises a request to allocate the additional storage space to the storage system (Mandagere para 0033 “A user associated with an entity provides quorum service 114 a quorum specification that includes a set of operations (e.g., one or more data management operations) that require a quorum of approvals before any operation included in the set is allowed to be performed (e.g., a restore of one or more of the archived backup snapshots). The quorum specification also includes a set of approvers that need to approve any operation included in the set of operations before any operation included in the set is allowed to be performed. Quorum server 114 generates a quorum policy based on the quorum specification. The quorum policy indicates the one or more operations associated with a storage system that require a quorum of approvals. Quorum service 114 is configured to store a copy of the policy.” Para 0035 “ The request may include information associated with a destination for the requested operation (e.g., one of the storage systems 104a, 104n).”).
As per claim 23, Mandagere in view of Silverstein discloses:
The cloud-based monitoring system of claim 19, wherein: the detecting the one or more conditions associated with the storage system comprises detecting a condition that indicates that one or more recovery datasets should be deleted from the storage system; and the request to perform the restricted operation comprises a request to delete the one or more recovery datasets from the storage system (Mandagere para 0033 “A user associated with an entity provides quorum service 114 a quorum specification that includes a set of operations (e.g., one or more data management operations) that require a quorum of approvals before any operation included in the set is allowed to be performed (e.g., a restore of one or more of the archived backup snapshots). The quorum specification also includes a set of approvers that need to approve any operation included in the set of operations before any operation included in the set is allowed to be performed. Quorum server 114 generates a quorum policy based on the quorum specification. The quorum policy indicates the one or more operations associated with a storage system that require a quorum of approvals. Quorum service 114 is configured to store a copy of the policy.” Para 0035 “ The request may include information associated with a destination for the requested operation (e.g., one of the storage systems 104a, 104n).”).
4. Claims 2 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandagere in view of Silverstein, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20210081216 hereinafter Komarov.
As per claim 2, Mandagere in view of Silverstein discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the detecting the one or more conditions
associated with the storage system (Mandagere para 0033, 0039 and 0053).
Mandagere in view of Silverstein does not disclose:
detecting a condition that indicates that a software update needs to be
applied to the storage system and the request to perform the restricted operation
comprises a request to apply the software update to the storage system
Komarov discloses:
detecting a condition that indicates that a software update needs to be
applied to the storage system and the request to perform the restricted operation
comprises a request to apply the software update to the storage system (para
0094 "In accordance with some embodiments the method, in the case that
the approval quorum that is necessary for the consensus is not achieved, also
comprises: renewed sending of the first change request by the requesting first
hardware component. If a consensus regarding acceptance of a
change request is not achieved since this change is not compatible with the
current configurations of one or more of the hardware components, this may
already be different in the event of a renewed request at a later time. If, in the
meantime, the configuration of the incompatible hardware components changes,
for example as a result of a corresponding software update, such that these are
now compatible, the change for a request sent again will now be successful.
Some embodiments may have the advantage that temporal changes to the
configurations of the hardware components may be taken into consideration."
Para 0137 "If an approval quorum of a plurality of hardware components of the
hardware system that is necessary for a consensus is achieved, the hardware
component provided for integration enters the requested change to the system
configuration of the hardware system 100 in the block chain 120. For example,
the configuration data 148 of the hardware component 106 are entered in the
block chain 120 and/or the public key 146. The change is furthermore
implemented, i.e. the hardware component 106 is included in the hardware
system 100. To this end, a corresponding message for example is sent to all
hardware components of the hardware system 100. The message for example
comprises the additional entries in the block chain 120 and/or the configuration
data 148 and/or the public key 146. Each of the hardware components of the
hardware system 100 which comprises a copy of the block chain 120 may thus
update this. For example, each hardware component of the hardware
system 100 comprises a copy of the block chain 120. Furthermore, the hardware
components of the hardware system 100 may adapt their configurations or
configuration data to the additional hardware component 106. This is true in
particular for hardware components whose configuration is incompatible with the
additional hardware component 106. An adaptation may be implemented for
example by way of a software update or an installation of an additional software
component. The altered block chain 120 is for example also sent to the additional
hardware component. In accordance with some embodiments the hardware
component intended for integration forwards the change request of the hardware
component 106 to the further hardware components of the hardware system 100.
Alternatively, the hardware component provided for integration does not forward
the change request of the hardware component 106, but instead creates a
second change request with use of the change request of the hardware
component 106, which second request is sent to further hardware components of
the hardware system 100. The forwarded change request and/or the second
change request is for example signed by the hardware component provided for
integration using a private cryptographic key associated with said hardware
component.")
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 the method of
Mandagere in view of Silverstein to include detecting a condition that indicates that a software update needs to be applied to the storage system and the request to perform the restricted operation comprises a request to apply the software update to the storage system, as taught by Komarov.
The motivation would have been to controlling a system configuration of a
hardware system for a software update.
As per claim 21, the claim is analyzed with respect to claim 2.
5. Claims 3, 4, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Mandagere in view of Silverstein, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20200401325 hereinafter Lamba.
As per claim 3, Mandagere in view of Silverstein discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the restricted operation (Mandagere para 0035 and 0051)
Mandagere in view of Silverstein does not disclose:
detecting the one or more conditions associated with the storage system
comprises detecting a condition that indicates that additional storage space
needs to be allocated to the storage system; and the request to perform the
restricted operation comprises a request to allocate the additional storage space
to the storage system
Lamba discloses:
detecting the one or more conditions associated with the storage system
comprises detecting a condition that indicates that additional storage space
needs to be allocated to the storage system; and the request to perform the
restricted operation comprises a request to allocate the additional storage space
to the storage system (para 0029 "As another example, the managing unit 18
performs network operations, network administration, and/or network
maintenance. Network operations includes authenticating user data allocation
requests (e.g., read and/or write requests), managing creation of vaults,
establishing authentication credentials for user devices, adding/deleting
components (e.g., user devices, storage units, and/or computing devices with a
DS client module 34) to/from the DSN 10, and/or establishing authentication
credentials for the storage units 36." para 0078 "In various embodiments, some
or all of the quorums data for some or all of the resources 1- R can be
considered additional resources themselves. Thus, the quorum data can similarly
be protected, where the quorum data for a particular resource can only be
modified if a similar, additional quorum is met for the additional resource
corresponding to the quorum data. For example, multiple client devices 955
and/or multiple administrators of one or more actor parties can be required to
authorize changes to the quorum data for one or more resources in accordance
with additional quorum data for the resource corresponding to the quorum data,
where the additional quorum data similarly defines minimum quorums required
for one or more designated actor parties as discussed herein. This additional
quorum data can be fixed, can be defined via client device 955, and/or can be
modified in accordance with its own, further additional quorum.")
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 the method of
Mandagere in view of Silverstein to include detecting the one or more conditions associated with the storage system comprises detecting a condition that indicates that additional storage space needs to be allocated to the storage system; and the request to perform the restricted operation comprises a request to allocate the additional storage space to the storage system, as taught by Lamba.
The motivation would have been to properly define a minimum quorum to
perform a restricted operation to properly authorize an operation.
As per claim 4, Mandagere in view of Silverstein discloses:
The method of claim 4, the detecting the one or more conditions
associated with the storage system (Mandagere para 0035 and 0051)
Mandagere in view of Silverstein does not disclose:
detecting the one or more conditions associated with the storage system
comprises detecting a condition that indicates that one or more recovery datasets
should be deleted from the storage system; and the request to perform the
restricted operation comprises a request to delete the one or more recovery
datasets from the storage system
Lamba discloses:
detecting the one or more conditions associated with the storage system
comprises detecting a condition that indicates that one or more recovery datasets
should be deleted from the storage system; and the request to perform the
restricted operation comprises a request to delete the one or more recovery
datasets from the storage system (para 0045 "A resource with a protected status
has the property that it can be read but cannot be modified and/or deleted, until
the protection status of the resource changes from protected to unprotected."
Para 0071 " A resource modification request can be received from a requestor
via the network, indicating a request to modify and/or delete resource 1." Para
0078 "For example, multiple client devices 955 and/or multiple administrators of
one or more actor parties can be required to authorize changes to the quorum
data for one or more resources in accordance with additional quorum data for the
resource corresponding to the quorum data, where the additional quorum data
similarly defines minimum quorums required for one or more designated actor
parties as discussed herein. This additional quorum data can be fixed, can be
defined via client device 955, and/or can be modified in accordance with its own,
further additional quorum." Para 0081 " Step 1002 includes facilitating storage of
a resource in memory, for example, managed by the computing device, such as
a dispersed storage network. Step 1004 includes setting a protection status of
the resource to a protected status in response to facilitating storage of the
resource. Step 1006 includes determining a set of actor parties required to
authorize a change of the protection status of the resource from the protected
status to an unprotected status. Step 1008 includes determining a minimum
quorum for each of the set of actor parties required to authorize a change of the
protection status of the resource from the protected status to the unprotected
status. Step 1010 includes receiving, from a plurality of requestors via a network,
a plurality of authorizations to change the protection status of the resource from
the protected status to the unprotected status. Step 1012 includes identifying a
plurality of subsets of the plurality of requestors, where each one of the plurality
of subsets corresponds to one of the set of actor parties. Step 1014 includes
setting the protection status of the resource to the unprotected status in response
to determining, for every one of the set of actor parties, that a number of
requestors in a corresponding one of the plurality of subsets of the plurality of
requestors is greater than or equal to the minimum quorum for the one of the set
of actor parties.")
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 the method of
Mandagere in view of Silverstein to include detecting the one or more conditions associated with the storage system comprises detecting a condition that indicates that one or more recovery datasets should be deleted from the storage system; and the request to perform the restricted operation comprises a request to delete the one or more recovery datasets from the storage system, as taught by Lamba.
The motivation would have been to properly define a restricted operation
to properly authorize an operation using a quorum service.
As per claim 10, the claim is analyzed with respect to claim 4.
As per claim 15, Mandagere in view of Silverstein discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the detecting that the threshold plurality of
the authorization events are performed by the plurality of entities (Mandagere para 0033, 0039 and 0053)
Mandagere in view of Silverstein does not disclose:
detecting that a first set of authorization events are performed by a first
minimum threshold number of entities included in a first set of entities and that a
second set of authorization events are performed by a second minimum
threshold number of entities included in a second set of entities
Lamba discloses:
detecting that a first set of authorization events are performed by a first
minimum threshold number of entities included in a first set of entities and that a
second set of authorization events are performed by a second minimum
threshold number of entities included in a second set of entities (para 0062 "As
illustrated, M of the N possible requestors can transmit their authorizations to
unprotect resource 1, where M is less than N. The computing device 916 can
receive these authorizations 1-M. A quorum evaluation module 980 can be
implemented by utilizing at least one processor of the computing device. The
protection status evaluation module can determine whether authorization is
granted by comparing the authorizations 1-M for resource 1 to the quorum data
for resource 1, for example, by fetching the quorum data for resource 1 from
memory. The quorum evaluation module 980 evaluation can identify which ones
of requestors 1-M that sent the authorizations 1-M correspond to each actor party
indicated in the quorum data for resource 1. In particular, a requestor can be
compared to enumerated identifiers in an actor party of resource 1, where the
requestor is determined to be a member of the actor party if an identifier of the
requestor matches one of the enumerated identifiers in the actor party. Similarly,
a requestor can be compared to a set of criteria defining members of an actor
party, where the requestor is determined to be a member of the actor party if the
requestor is determined to compare favorably to the set of criteria. In some
embodiments, credentials validating each requestor is generated and transmitted
by each requestor in conjunction with the authorization. The computing device
can utilize the credentials to validate and/or determine the identity of each
requestor 1-M. These credentials can be compared to the enumerated identifiers
and/or set of criteria of an actor party to determine whether the corresponding
requestor is a member of the actor party." Para 0065 "In other embodiments, only a proper subset of actor parties need to meet their corresponding minimum
quorums for the overall quorum to be determined and for the resource to become
unprotected, where the minimum quorum is not met for at least one of the actor
parties. The quorum data can indicate whether or not minimum quorums must be
met by every actor party, for example, based on an indication in the minimum
quorum selection data received from the client device. If the quorum data
indicates that minimum quorums need only be met by a proper subset of actor
parties, the quorum data can further indicate which proper subsets are
acceptable. For example, a plurality of different proper subsets of the actor
parties with their minimum quorums met can all be valid solutions in establishing
an overall quorum. These proper subsets can be the same or different in size.
For example, some proper subsets may include all but one of the actor parties,
other proper subsets are missing two or more of the actor parties. The number of
actor parties required for different proper subsets can be a function of a
determined importance and/or weight of the roles of the actor parties themselves.
For example, a first proper subset of actor parties may include fewer actor parties
than a second proper subset of actor parties in response the first proper subset
including one or more actor parties that are more important than and/or whose
authorization holds more weight than one or more actor parties in the second
proper subset.")
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 the method of
Mandagere in view of Silverstein to include detecting that a first set of authorization events are performed by a first minimum threshold number of entities included in a first set of entities and that a second set of authorization events are performed by a second minimum threshold number of entities included in a second set of entities, as taught by Lamba.
The motivation would have been to properly define a minimum quorum to
perform a restricted operation to properly authorize an operation.
6. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandagere in view of Silverstein, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20200311583 hereinafter Manamohan.
As per claim 5, Mandagere in view of Silverstein discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the detecting the one or more conditions
associated with the storage system (Mandagere para 0033, 0039 and 0053)
Mandagere in view of Silverstein does not disclose:
monitoring one or more metrics associated with the storage system;
providing metric data representative of the monitored one or more metrics to a
machine learning model; detecting the one or more conditions based on an
output of the machine learning model
Manamohan discloses:
monitoring one or more metrics associated with the storage system;
providing metric data representative of the monitored one or more metrics to a
machine learning model; detecting the one or more conditions based on an
output of the machine learning model (para 0035 " FIGS. 2A-2B illustrate an
example of nodes 10a-10g of blockchain network 200 communicating in
accordance with the fault tolerance techniques described above. FIGS. 2A-
2B illustrate an "out-of-sync" node 10e communicating to the master node 10g in
a manner that provides fault tolerance during model building (also referred to
herein as machine learning or model training). For purposes of illustration, the
process is shown as a first phase (primarily shown in FIG. 2A) prior to excluding
node 10e from the model building process by the master node 10g, and a second
phase (primarily shown in FIG. 2B) after the node 10e has been excluded. FIG.
2A also depicts a distributed ledger 42 that is global to the blockchain
network 200. As alluded to above, FIGS. 2A-2B show node 10g acting as the
master node for this illustrated example. Each of the other nodes enrolled to
participate in an iteration, namely nodes 10a-10d, and 10f, are referred to herein
as a "participant node." According to the fault tolerance techniques, there is
a minimum number of participants nodes in the population that must be ready to
share training parameters in order for the master node 10g to continue with the
iteration of training. This minimum number of nodes may be referred to
hereinafter as the quorum population threshold. The quorum population threshold
may be a quantitative value, such as a number, count, a percentage, etc.,
relating to a required minimum for the population size of participant nodes that is
deemed sufficient to maintain a desirable level of precision for
building models and/or an overall learning ability of the ML system. In other
cases, the quorum population threshold may be a qualitative value.
The quorum population threshold can be defined by one or more rules, which
may be encoded in the fault tolerance aspects of the smart contract, as
described herein. Furthermore, the quorum population threshold may be either a
static value, or a dynamic value that may be adjusted based on a number of
relevant factors such as the specific application, desired precision level of
generated models, characteristic of the distributed environment, and the like.")
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 the method of
Mandagere in view of Silverstein to include monitoring one or more metrics associated with the storage system; providing metric data representative of the monitored one or more metrics to a machine learning model; detecting the one or more conditions based on an output of the machine learning model, as taught by Manamohan.
The motivation would have been to monitoring one or more metrics
associated with the storage system and providing metric data to adapt
decentralized model building to achieve fault tolerance properly.
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 GARY S GRACIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Philip Chea can be reached at 5712723951. 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.
/GARY S GRACIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499