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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
This action is in response Applicant's amendments filed 22 April 2026. Claims 1-20 were previously pending. Claims 1, 11, 13, and 19 have been amended according to Applicant’s amendments. No claims have been added or cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are presently pending and under consideration.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101 -
Applicant's arguments filed 22 April 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. In particular, Applicant’s argument the claims represent a specific technical improvement to how presently available storage systems manage competing demands from multiple users through a specific combination of steps that, when considered as a whole, solve the technical problems encountered by enterprise storage systems by dynamically allocating performance capacity based on detected surge conditions and adaptive thresholds, is persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 is withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12073078. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are fully disclosed by, and therefore anticipated by, claims 1-24 of US 12073078, as further illustrated below. Further, certain ones of the dependent claims of the instant application have corresponding dependent claims with identical or near identical claim limitations disclosed by US 12073078.
Instant Application
US 12073078
Reasoning:
1. A method comprising: receiving, by a computing platform, a plurality of data storage requests from at least a user storage group; comparing, by the computing platform, first data indicative of a storage performance metric for the user storage group to a first threshold value; identifying, by the computing platform, and based on the comparison of the first data indicative of the storage performance metric for the user storage group to the first threshold value, that a data surge is occurring; when it is determined that the data surge is occurring: determining available performance capacity of the computing platform; and increasing, based on the available performance capacity of the computing platform, at least one storage performance metric of the user storage group; when the storage performance metric remains less than a first percentage of the first threshold value for a first duration, decreasing the first threshold value; and when the storage performance metric is greater than a second percentage of the first threshold value, increasing the first threshold value; and managing, by the computing platform via resource allocation based on the first threshold value and in response to the plurality of data storage requests, data throughput for data access operations of the user storage group, wherein the managing prevents noisy neighbor conditions and slow drain conditions resulting from network conditions by adjusting resources allocated to applications.
1. A method comprising: receiving, by a computer platform, the computing platform having at least one processor and memory, first data indicative of a storage performance metric for a user storage group; comparing, by the at least one processor, the first data indicative of the storage performance metric for the user storage group to at least one threshold value; determining, by the at least one processor, and based on the comparison of the received first data indicative of the storage performance metric for the user storage group to the at least one threshold value, whether a data surge is occurring; when it is determined that the data surge is not occurring, continuing to receive, by the computer platform, second data indicative of the storage performance metric for the user storage group; when it is determined that the data surge is occurring: determining available performance capacity of the computer platform; and in response to determining that the available performance capacity is available, increasing at least one storage performance metric of the user storage group; when the storage performance metric remains less than a first predetermined percentage of the at least one threshold value for at least a predetermined time duration, decreasing the at least one threshold value; and when the storage performance metric is greater than a second predetermined percentage of thresholds agreed to level, increasing the at least one threshold value.
The language between the claims may not be the exactly same but the limitations in the instant application are fully disclosed by the bolded limitations of corresponding claim in US 12073078.
Examiner notes the limitations “wherein the managing prevents noisy neighbor conditions and slow drain conditions resulting from network conditions” has not been given patentable weight as it is a statement of intended use.
Dependent claims 2-10.
Dependent claims 2-10.
The claims contain the same limitations.
11. An apparatus, comprising: a processor; and memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to: receive a plurality of data storage requests from a user storage group; compare, by the processor, first data indicative of a storage performance metric for the user storage group to a first threshold value; identify, by the processor, and based on the comparison of the first data indicative of the storage performance metric for the user storage group to the first threshold value, that a data surge is occurring; when it is determined that the data surge is occurring: determine available performance capacity of the apparatus; and increase, based on the available performance capacity, at least one storage performance metric of the user storage group; when the storage performance metric remains less than a first percentage of the first threshold value for at least a first duration, decreasing the first threshold value; and when the storage performance metric is greater than a second percentage of a second threshold value, increasing the first threshold value; and manage, resource allocation based on the first threshold value and in response to the plurality of data storage requests, data throughput for data access operations of the user storage group, wherein the managing prevents noisy neighbor conditions and slow drain conditions resulting from network conditions by adjusting resources allocated to applications.
11. An apparatus, comprising: a processor; and memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to: receive first data indicative of a storage performance metric for a user storage group; compare, by the processor, the first data indicative of the storage performance metric for the user storage group to at least one threshold value; determine, by the processor, and based on the comparison of the received first data indicative of the storage performance metric for the user storage group to the at least one threshold value, whether a data surge is occurring; when it is determined that the data surge is occurring: determine available performance capacity of the apparatus; and in response to determining that the available performance capacity is available, increase at least one storage performance metric of the user storage group; when the storage performance metric remains less than a first predetermined percentage of the at least one threshold value for at least a predetermined time duration, decreasing the at least one threshold value; and when the storage performance metric is greater than a second predetermined percentage of thresholds agreed to level, increasing the at least one threshold value.
The language between the claims may not be the exactly same but the limitations in the instant application are fully disclosed by the bolded limitations of corresponding claim in US 12073078. Examiner notes the limitations “wherein the managing prevents noisy neighbor conditions and slow drain conditions resulting from network conditions” has not been given patentable weight as it is a statement of intended use.
Dependent claim 12-18.
Dependent claim 12-18.
The claims contain the same limitations.
19. A system comprising: a computing platform comprising: a processor; and non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the computing platform, cause the computing platform to: receive a plurality of data storage requests from a user storage group; compare first data indicative of a storage performance metric for the user storage group to a first threshold value; determine, based on the comparison of the first data indicative of the storage performance metric for the user storage group to the first threshold value, whether a data surge is occurring; when it is determined that the data surge is occurring: identify available performance capacity of a plurality of computing devices comprising at least the computing platform; and increase the storage performance metric of the user storage group; when the storage performance metric remains less than a first percentage of the first threshold value for at least a first duration, decrease the first threshold value; and when the storage performance metric is greater than a second predetermined percentage of a second threshold, increase the first threshold value, and manage, resource allocation based on the first threshold value and in response to the plurality of data storage requests, data throughput for data access operations of the user storage group, wherein the managing prevents noisy neighbor conditions and slow drain conditions resulting from network conditions by adjusting resources allocated to applications.
19. One or more non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to: receive first data indicative of a storage performance metric for a user storage group; compare the first data indicative of the storage performance metric for the user storage group to at least one threshold value; determine based on the comparison of the received first data indicative of the storage performance metric for the user storage group to the at least one threshold value, whether a data surge is occurring; when it is determined that the data surge is occurring: determine available performance capacity of the one or more computing devices; and in response to determining that the available performance capacity is available, increase at least one storage performance metric of the user storage group; when the storage performance metric remains less than a first predetermined percentage of the at least one threshold value for at least a predetermined time duration, decrease the at least one threshold value; and when the storage performance metric is greater than a second predetermined percentage of thresholds agreed to level, increase the at least one threshold value.
The instant application is a system claim but also uses the same computer-readable medium storing instructions that are fully disclosed by the bolded limitations of corresponding claim in US 12073078. Examiner notes the limitations “wherein the managing prevents noisy neighbor conditions and slow drain conditions resulting from network conditions” has not been given patentable weight as it is a statement of intended use.
Dependent claim 20.
Dependent claim 21
Different wording but nearly the same limitation.
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 1-20 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 claims contain 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.
In particular, claims 1, 11, and 19 recite the limitation “slow drain” and Applicant’s specification does not define the limitation “slow drain”. The specification recites the term “slow drain” or “slowness” at paragraphs [03], [20], and [26] without sufficient details, specifics, or explanation about what constitutes a “slow” drain and how or what is determined/or measured such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Accordingly, the specification fails to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a).
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 depend from and thus inherit the deficiencies of their respective independent claims and therefore are rejected for at least the same reasons.
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.
The terms “noisy” and “slow” in claims 1, 11, and 19 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “noisy” and “slow” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification at [03] and [20] discloses generally that total bandwidth simultaneously being accessed by numerous users or user storage groups may cause transaction slowness. However, there is no further elaboration in the specification as to how much slowness is required to become a “noisy” neighbor. It is unclear what level of transaction slowness is necessary to require adjusting or changing throughput limits. Similarly, the specification at [03], [20], and [26] mention “slow” drain or “slowness” but does not disclose, detail, or define what determines a “slow” drain or how transaction “slowness” is defined or measured. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able reasonably determine how slow a transaction would need to be or how much slowness is necessary to meet the requirements of “slow drain” conditions. Accordingly, the claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claims the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 depend from and thus inherit the deficiencies of their respective independent claims and therefore are rejected for at least the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the rejections under 35 USC 112(a), 35 USC 112(b), and double patenting are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art:
(1) Brooker et al (US 2016/0283139 A1) discloses a client utilization monitor querying metrics of client use of data volumes and detecting trigger events to dynamically adjust volume configurations.
(2) Kalmuk et al (US 2022/0405133 A1) discloses a method includes: calculating a resource consumption value of a first workload and determining the resource consumption value of the first workload is greater than a predefined resource allocation target for the first workload and temporarily adjusting a renewable runtime resource target of the first workload from an initial target value to a temporary target value based on the resource consumption value.
(3) Chen et al (US 2017/0083367 A1) discloses managing a resource in a distributed resource management system can include: monitoring, by at least one processor, utilization of the resource being used by at least one workload; and performing an enforcement action on a particular workload of the at least one workload when a utilization condition is met, and when the particular workload has a current resource utilization exceeding its associated resource allocation limit.
However, the prior art alone or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest the combination of:
comparing first data indicative of a storage performance metric for a user storage group to a first threshold value; identifying based on the comparison of the first data indicative of the storage performance metric for the user storage group to the first threshold value that a data surge is occurring; when a data surge is occurring: determining available performance capacity of the computing platform and increasing at least one storage performance metric of the user storage group; when the storage performance metric remains less than a first percentage of the first threshold value for a first duration, decreasing the first threshold value; and when the storage performance metric is greater than a second percentage of the first threshold value, increasing the first threshold value, as in independent claim 1,
compare first data indicative of a storage performance metric for a user storage group to a first threshold value; identify based on the comparison of the first data indicative of the storage performance metric for the user storage group to the first threshold value that a data surge is occurring; when it is determined that the data surge is occurring: determine available performance capacity of the apparatus; and increase, based on the available performance capacity, at least one storage performance metric of the user storage group; when the storage performance metric remains less than a first percentage of the first threshold value for at least a first duration, decreasing the first threshold value; and when the storage performance metric is greater than a second percentage of a second threshold value, increasing the first threshold value, as in independent claim 11,
and, compare first data indicative of a storage performance metric for a user storage group to a first threshold value; determine based on the comparison of the received first data indicative of the storage performance metric for the user storage group to the first threshold value whether a data surge is occurring; when it is determined that the data surge is occurring: identify available performance capacity of a plurality of computing devices comprising at least the computing platform; and increase the storage performance metric of the user storage group; when the storage performance metric remains less than a first percentage of the first threshold value for at least a first duration, decrease the first threshold value; and when the storage performance metric is greater than a second predetermined percentage of a second threshold, increase the first threshold value, as in independent claim 19.
The remaining dependent claims would be allowable for at least the same reasons as its respective independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMUND H KWONG whose telephone number is (571)272-8691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 PT.
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, Arpan P. Savla can be reached at 571-272-1077. 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.
/E.H.K/Examiner, Art Unit 2137
/Arpan P. Savla/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights