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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action has been issued in response to arguments/amendments filed on 01/27/2026. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments/amendments regarding the rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20, filed on 01/27/2026 as recited in pages 7-8, have been fully considered but arguments are moot because newly added limitation to the claim (s) requires a new ground of rejection necessitated by amendments. New sections of the reference Lee have been introduced to address the newly added limitations. The reasons are included below in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
2. Claims 1, 3-11, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US Patent No. 9,384,082, hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee does disclose a method comprising: determining, by a processing device executing a fleet management service, a configuration of one or more parameters for one or more storage arrays (Lee, (col. 56-76 and col. 5 lines 1-2), the storage array services provider (176) in the example of FIG. 1 may then determine whether the particular problem violates an operational policy of the storage array. A storage array may be subject to any number of operational policies. An operational policy as the term is used in this specification refers to a policy that specifies at least one requirement for an operational metric of the storage array. … …. another example may be related to ensuring performance (i.e. parameter) objectives of the storage array... .);
identifying, Lee, (col. 4 lines 10-35), when multiple storage arrays, for example, suffer the same problem, the events leading up to the occurrence of the problem may be cross correlated amongst the arrays to identify a similar pattern of events. Such a pattern of events may be utilized to generate the problem signature for the particular problem. … … a particular issue may occur on one or more arrays, set ‘A,’ but that same particular issue may not yet have occurred or have been observed on another one or more arrays, set ‘B.’ To generate a problem signature in such an environment, the one or more storage arrays of set ‘A’ may be inspected for common characteristics, such as software version, controller type, performance settings, and the like. The particular issue may arise on only set A, rather than set B, for various reasons and as an effect of such common characteristics. …); and
modifying to use the configuration of the one or more parameters (Lee, (col. 5 lines 16-22), if the particular problem violates the operational policy of the storage array, the storage array services provider may, … …, deploy one or more corrective measures … …. examples of corrective measures may include a software upgrade, a firmware upgrade, setting (i.e. configuring) of performance parameters, and the like); (col. 9 lines 48-55), … deploying (408) one or more corrective measures … … from the storage array services provider to the storage array via a data communications network and one or more APIs, an update to software, a change to one or more performance tuning metrics, an update to firmware, a change in configuration, and so on).
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Regarding claim 3, Lee further discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the configuration comprises a software update and wherein modifying the one or more storage arrays and the one or more similar storage arrays comprises applying the software update to the one or more storage arrays and the one or more similar storage arrays (Lee, (col. 9 lines 48-55), … deploying (408) one or more corrective measures to prevent the storage array from experiencing the particular problem may be carried out by pushing from the storage array services provider to the storage array via a data communications network and one or more APIs, an update to software, a change to one or more performance tuning metrics, an update to firmware, a change in configuration, and so on)..
Regarding claim 4, Lee further discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising identifying the one or more storage arrays (Lee, (col. 3 lines 55-65), data received from a storage array may take various forms including, for example, log data from components of the storage array. Such log data may include a description of events that occur at the components of the storage array).
Regarding claim 5, Lee further discloses the method of claim 4 wherein identifying the one or more storage arrays comprises identifying the one or more storage arrays based on log data received from the one or more storage arrays (Lee, (col. 3 lines 55-65), data received from a storage array may take various forms including, for example, log data from components of the storage array. Such log data may include a description of events that occur at the components of the storage array).
Regarding claim 6, Lee further discloses the method of claim 4 wherein identifying the one or more storage arrays comprises receiving a selection of the one or more storage arrays (Lee, (col. 4 lines 58-67), a storage array may be subject to any number of operational policies. An operational policy as the term is used in this specification refers to a policy that specifies at least one requirement for an operational metric of the storage array. Operational metrics may be any type of metric that describes operation of the storage array including, for example, throughput, data reduction, high availability, and the like. One particular example of an operational policy may be a service level agreement for a required quality of service).
Regarding claim 7, Lee further discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising selecting the one or more attributes from a plurality of attributes Lee, (col. 4 lines 58-67), a storage array may be subject to any number of operational policies. An operational policy as the term is used in this specification refers to a policy that specifies at least one requirement for an operational metric of the storage array. Operational metrics may be any type of metric that describes operation of the storage array including, for example, throughput, data reduction, high availability, and the like. One particular example of an operational policy may be a service level agreement for a required quality of service).
Regarding claim 8, Lee further discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the one or more attributes comprise one or more hardware attributes. Lee, (col. 4 lines 58-67), a storage array may be subject to any number of operational policies. An operational policy as the term is used in this specification refers to a policy that specifies at least one requirement for an operational metric of the storage array. Operational metrics may be any type of metric that describes operation of the storage array including, for example, throughput, data reduction, high availability, and the like. One particular example of an operational policy may be a service level agreement for a required quality of service)
Regarding claim 9, Lee further discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the one or more attributes comprise one or more software attributes (Lee, (col. 4 lines 58-67), a storage array may be subject to any number of operational policies. An operational policy as the term is used in this specification refers to a policy that specifies at least one requirement for an operational metric of the storage array. Operational metrics may be any type of metric that describes operation of the storage array including, for example, throughput, data reduction, high availability, and the like. One particular example of an operational policy may be a service level agreement for a required quality of service).
Regarding claim 10, Lee further discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the one or more attributes comprise one or more attributes describing activity of the storage array Lee, (col. 4 lines 58-67), a storage array may be subject to any number of operational policies. An operational policy as the term is used in this specification refers to a policy that specifies at least one requirement for an operational metric of the storage array. Operational metrics may be any type of metric that describes operation of the storage array including, for example, throughput, data reduction, high availability, and the like. One particular example of an operational policy may be a service level agreement for a required quality of service).
Regarding claim 11, Lee does disclose the system comprising: a memory; and a processing device executing a fleet management service, operatively coupled to the memory, the processing device configured to: determine configuration of one more parameters for one or more storage arrays (Lee, (col. 56-76 and col. 5 lines 1-2), the storage array services provider (176) in the example of FIG. 1 may then determine whether the particular problem violates an operational policy of the storage array. A storage array may be subject to any number of operational policies. An operational policy as the term is used in this specification refers to a policy that specifies at least one requirement for an operational metric of the storage array. … …. another example may be related to ensuring performance (i.e. parameter) objectives of the storage array... .); identify, the one or more storage arrays, one or more similar storage arrays similar to the one or more storage arrays (Lee, (col. 4 lines 10-35), when multiple storage arrays, for example, suffer the same problem, the events leading up to the occurrence of the problem may be cross correlated amongst the arrays to identify a similar pattern of events. Such a pattern of events may be utilized to generate the problem signature for the particular problem. … … a particular issue may occur on one or more arrays, set ‘A,’ but that same particular issue may not yet have occurred or have been observed on another one or more arrays, set ‘B.’ To generate a problem signature in such an environment, the one or more storage arrays of set ‘A’ may be inspected for common characteristics, such as software version, controller type, performance settings, and the like. The particular issue may arise on only set A, rather than set B, for various reasons and as an effect of such common characteristics. …); and modify to use the configuration of the one or more parameters (Lee, (col. 5 lines 16-22), if the particular problem violates the operational policy of the storage array, the storage array services provider may, … …, deploy one or more corrective measures … …. examples of corrective measures may include a software upgrade, a firmware upgrade, setting (i.e. configuring) of performance parameters, and the like); (col. 9 lines 48-55), … deploying (408) one or more corrective measures … … from the storage array services provider to the storage array via a data communications network and one or more APIs, an update to software, a change to one or more performance tuning metrics, an update to firmware, a change in configuration, and so on).
Claim 12 is cancelled.
Regarding claim 13, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 3. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 14, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 4. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 15, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 5. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 16, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 6. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 17, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 7. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 8. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 9. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 10. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORSHED MEHEDI whose telephone number is (571) 270-7640. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Linglan Edwards can be reach on (571) 270-5440. The fax 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 their 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.
/MORSHED MEHEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
Prosecution Insights