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 .
Remarks
The amendments and arguments are persuasive over the previous 35 USC 101 rejections and have been withdrawn.
In light of amendments to claims the previous double patenting rejections have been modified to obvious type double patenting with a secondary reference. See rejections below.
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, 15, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,253,904 in view of Caradonna et al. US 2016/0011950 (hereinafter “Caradonna”).
Claim 1:
Instant Application
Patent 12,253,904
Reason for Obviousness
1. An apparatus comprising: at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory; the at least one processing device being configured:
1. An apparatus comprising: at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory; the at least one processing device being configured:
Functionally equivalent.
to determine information characterizing a plurality of alerts detected on a set of two or more storage systems, the determined information characterizing (i) times at which the plurality of alerts are at least one of raised and cleared on the set of two or more storage systems, (ii) times at which one or more recovery actions are taken on the set of two or more storage systems, and (iii) system state information for respective ones of the storage systems in the set of two or more storage systems before and after the one or more recovery actions
to determine information characterizing one or more errors detected on a first one of a set of two or more storage systems, the determined information comprising a configuration of the first storage system, one or more error messages associated with the detected one or more errors, one or more recovery actions taken on the first storage system in response to the one or more error messages, and system state information for the first storage system before and after the one or more recovery actions
Functionally equivalent.
to generate, utilizing one or more machine learning algorithms that take as input at least a portion of the determined information, an alert bundle self-healing policy for a given set of alerts in the plurality of two or more alerts, the alert bundle self-healing policy identifying a root cause alert in the given set of two or more alerts and at least one recovery action to take in response to the root cause alert to remediate the given set of two or more alerts;
to generate, utilizing one or more machine learning algorithms based at least in part on the determined information, at least one self-healing policy for at least one of the one or more error messages, the at least one self-healing policy specifying at least one recovery action to take in response to said at least one of the one or more error messages; and
Functionally equivalent.
to provision at least one or more portions of the alert bundle self-healing policy in storage controllers of each of the two or more storage systems;
to provision the generated at least one self-healing policy in storage controllers of each of the two or more storage systems.
Functionally equivalent.
Instant Application
US 2016/0011950 (secondary ref.)
Reason for Obviousness
to detect, by a given storage controller of a given one of the two or more storage systems, a given instance of the root cause alert; and
FIG. 4: Monitor Active Storage Controller(s) 400; Failure? 402
Caradonna’s invention monitors a plurality of storage controllers and storage devices for failure.
to perform, by the given storage controller, the at least one recovery action identified in the alert bundle self-healing policy in response to detecting the given instance of the root cause alert.
FIG. 4: Remap Storage Device(s) and Network Interface 404
Caradonna’s invention remaps storage devices and controllers when a failure is detected.
Independent claims 15 and 18 recite similarly to claim 1 of the patent and secondary reference and are rejected for similar reasons.
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 JONATHAN D GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)431-0699. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 A.M.-4:00 P.M..
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, BRYCE P BONZO can be reached at (571)-272-3655. 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.
/JONATHAN D GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights