FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0058075 to Satheesh Kumar et al. (hereinafter Kumar) in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,896,114 to Savanur.
Kumar discloses:
1. A method for predicting a failure of a storage device, comprising:
determining a matrix of differences between actual values of a plurality of attributes of the storage device obtained during a first time period and predicted values of the plurality of attributes of the storage device for the first time period (para. [0063] and Fig. 2, step 210 – difference matrix calculated based on operational and reference data sets); and
predicting whether the storage device will fail based on the matrix of differences (para. [0063] and Fig. 2, step 212 – determine whether data includes a fault),
wherein the predicted values of the plurality of attributes for the first time period are determined based on actual values of the plurality of attributes of the storage device for a second time period (para. [0065])
Kumar does not disclose expressly wherein the predicted values of the plurality of attributes for the first time period are determined based on actual values of the plurality of attributes of the storage device for a second time period by using a model trained based on training methods to enable the model to predict future values of the plurality of attributes of the storage device.
Savanur teaches wherein the predicted values of the plurality of attributes for the first time period are determined based on actual values of the plurality of attributes of the storage device for a second time period by using a model trained based on training methods to enable the model to predict future values of the plurality of attributes of the storage device (col. 1, lns. 12-36).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kumar by using a trained model to predict values, as taught by Savanur. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to detect failures in a less time-consuming manner, as discussed by Savanur (col. 3, lns. 35-41).
Modified Kumar discloses:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the predicting of whether the storage device will fail based on the matrix of differences comprises:
predicting whether the storage device will fail based on a first similarity between the matrix of differences and first matrices of differences for a plurality of healthy storage devices and a second similarity between the matrix of differences and second matrices of differences for a plurality of failed storage devices (Kumar - para. [0077]).
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the first matrices of differences comprises a matrix of differences between actual values of the plurality of attributes of each of the healthy storage devices obtain during a time period with a first duration and predicted values of the plurality of attributes of the healthy storage devices for the time period with the first duration (Kumar - para. [0065]),
wherein the second matrices of differences for the plurality of failed devices comprises a matrix of differences between actual values of the plurality of attributes of each of the failed storage devices for the time period with the first duration before each failed storage device failed and predicted values of the plurality of attributes of each of the failed storage devices for the time period with the first duration before each failed storage device failed (Kumar - para. [0077]), and
wherein the first duration is the same as a duration of the first time period (Kumar - paras. [0034], [0065]).
4. The method of claim 2, the predicting of whether the storage device will fail based on the matrix of differences comprises:
determining that the storage device will not fail when the first similarity is greater than the second similarity (Kumar - paras. [0063], [0078]); and
determining that the storage device will fail when the first similarity is not greater than the second similarity (Kumar - paras. [0063], [0078]).
5. The method of claim 3, wherein the first similarity is indicative of a sum of distances between the matrix of differences and the first matrices of differences, and the second similarity is indicative of a sum of distances between the matrix of differences and the second matrices of differences (Kumar - paras. [0074]-[0075]).
6. The method of claim 5 further comprises:
determining first distances between the matrix of differences and the first matrices of differences based on a matrix of first weights for the attributes, the matrix of differences, and the first matrices of differences (Kumar - paras. [0067]-[0075]); and
determining second distances between the matrix of differences and the second matrices of differences for the plurality of failed storage devices based on a matrix of second weights for the attributes, the matrix of differences and the second matrices of differences (Kumar - paras. [0067]-[0075]).
Claims 13-18 are a device for performing the same steps as performed by the method of claims 1-6, and are rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 Philip Guyton whose telephone number is (571)272-3807. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30.
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 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.
/PHILIP GUYTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights