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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
This is in response to communications filed on 9/19/24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 -6, 8-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following reasons.
Claims 1-9, 10 - 17 and 18 - 20 are directed to a system (Claims 1-9), a method (claims 10-17) and non-transitory computer-readable medium (claims 18-20).
The limitations, recited in claim 1 - determine an amount of energy consumed by the storage system to perform the plurality of I/O operations; and generate an energy usage effectiveness of the storage system based on a number of the plurality of I/O operations performed by the storage system and the amount of energy consumed by the storage system to perform the plurality of I/O operations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or in paper/pencil. These operations can simply be performed by a human mind or paper/pencil, particularly generating the energy usage effectiveness includes performing a mathematical expression (Fig 5 of the specification). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. In this case, the claims simply recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind; including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (Step 2A prong one analysis).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. As mentioned, the judicial exceptions determine an amount of energy consumed by the storage system to perform the plurality of I/O operations; and generate an energy usage effectiveness of the storage system based on a number of the plurality of I/O operations performed by the storage system and the amount of energy consumed by the storage system to perform the plurality of I/O operations are mental processes. The claim recites additional elements - memory, processing device configured to receive, from a storage system, one or more indications that a plurality of input/output (I/O) operations have been performed by the storage system. Memory and processing device is recited in high level of generality. The other limitation “receive, from a storage system, one or more indications that a plurality of input/output (I/O) operations have been performed by the storage system” can be a mere data gathering step, and therefore, represents an insignificant activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A Prong Two analysis)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations “receive, from a storage system, one or more indications that a plurality of input/output (I/O) operations have been performed by the storage system” is a data gathering step, where indications for input/output operations are collected. These types of components/activities are well understood, routine or conventional. (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): receiving or transmitting data over a network; storing or retrieving information from memory). The “memory” and “processing device” are recited in high level of generality. These elements are being used as "tools to automate the abstract idea" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). Thus, the additional limitations, either individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more. Claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B analysis).
For claims 2, 11, and 19, receiving throughput is a data gathering step and do not amount to significantly more. Claim is not patent eligible.
For claims 3, 12, 20, storage system controller is a generic component and recited in high level of generality and do not amount to significantly more. Claim is not patent eligible.
For claims 4 and 13, scheduling modification of operation can be performed in paper/pencil and is an abstract idea. Claim is not patent eligible.
For claims 5 and 14, executing AI model to determine the modifications do not amount to significantly more as the model is recited in high level of generality. Claim is not patent eligible.
For claims 6 and 15, scheduling modification of operation can be performed in paper/pencil and is an abstract idea. The limitation “to cause an amount of power consumed … not to exceed” does not necessarily include consuming power by storage system. The “receive a maximum power available” is a data gathering step and do not amount to significantly more. Claim is not patent eligible.
For claims 8 and 17, scheduling modification of operation can be performed in paper/pencil and is an abstract idea. The limitation “to cause power consumption … to not exceed” does not necessarily include consuming power by storage system. The “receive a maximum power available” is a data gathering step and do not amount to significantly more. Claim is not patent eligible.
For claim 9, generating GUI is an insignificant extra solution activity and well understood routine conventional activity and therefore, does not amount to significantly more. Claim is not patent eligible.
For claims 10 and 18, the analysis provided in claim 1 appropriately applies to the ineligibility of the claims. The recited additional elements, "a non-transitory computer readable medium and a processing device", beyond the judicial exception but does not integrate into practical application. The non-transitory computer readable medium and a processing device, are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 11 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 2, 11 and 19 recite “the plurality of I/O requests”, which lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-13, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Stabler (US Patent 20240045698; cited in IDS).
For claim 1, Stabler et al teach the following limitations: An apparatus, comprising: a memory ([0098][0099]); and a processing device (Fig 8; processor 816; [0098]-[0099]), operatively coupled to the memory, configured to: receiving, from a storage system (Fig 1 is the storage system; Fig 8 processor 816 and system 814; API mentioned in [0040[]-[0041] obtains information; [0033][0039][0099][0089][0108]), one or more indications that a plurality of input/output (I/O) operations have been performed by the storage system (information obtained by API indicates IOPS performed by the storage system; [0041]-[0042] determined metrics is IOPS/watt and metrics is determined from information; [0033][0054][0061][0073][0083]; thus number of input/output operations information is received by management agent 148 and other components [0039]; [0005] – collected information from storage devices); determining an amount of energy consumed by the storage system to perform the plurality of I/O operations (calculate power consumption – [0039]; [0049][0054][0055][0062]-[0069]; power (i.e., energy in unit time) is calculated using IOPS; thus the calculation determines the energy consumed to perform the IO operations); and generating an energy usage effectiveness of the storage system ([0042]-[0046][0055][0064][0065][0066][0070] - least efficient workload/aggregate is identified; GUI provides recommendations/suggestion to increase efficiency by moving/relocating workload) based on a number of the plurality of I/O operations performed by the storage system ([0042][0054] [0061]-[0064] mention about IOPS) and the amount of energy consumed by the storage system to perform the plurality of I/O operations ([0054]-[0055] [0062]-[0064] power consumed for the IOPS to calculate IOPS/watt; Fig 2 and [0058][0060][0061] mentions how to compute power).
For claims 2, 11, 19, Stabler teaches the following limitations: wherein the processing device is further configured to: receive, from the storage system, a throughput of the storage system when performing the plurality of I/O operations ([0043][0055] IOPS/watt metric can provide insight into power consumption in terms of throughput; metrics associated with busiest workloads based on throughput; thus the throughput is received from the storage system), wherein generating the energy usage effectiveness of the storage system is further based on the throughput of the storage system when performing the plurality of I/O requests ([0043]-[0045][0055][0064]-[0067][0070]-[0071] the metric is in terms of the throughput and the metric is used to compare the workloads/aggregates to determine least/most efficient).
For claims 3, 12, 20, Stabler teaches wherein the apparatus is a storage system controller of the storage system (Fig 1 and Fig 8; [0035][0039][0099] – processor and management agent 148 is the storage system controller of the storage system shown in Fig 2).
For claims 4, 13, Stabler teach the following limitations: wherein the processing device is further configured to: modify scheduling of a subsequent plurality of (I/O) operations to be performed by the storage system to increase the energy usage effectiveness of the storage system ([0067][0075] – changing schedules for operations [0095][0105][0114]).
For claim 9, Stabler teaches the following limitations: wherein the processing device is further configured to: generate a graphical user interface (GUI) for providing the energy usage effectiveness of the storage system ([0101] graphical user interface with various dashboards and recommendation).
For claim 10, Stabler et al teach the following limitations: A method, comprising: receiving, by a processing device from a storage system (Fig 1 is the storage system; Fig 8 processor 816 and system 814; API mentioned in [0040[]-[0041] obtains information; [0033][0039][0099][0089][0108]), one or more indications that a plurality of input/output (I/O) operations have been performed by the storage system (information obtained by API indicates IOPS performed by the storage system; [0041]-[0042] determined metrics is IOPS/watt and metrics is determined from information; [0033][0054][0061][0073][0083]; thus number of input/output operations information is received by management agent 148 and other components [0039]; [0005] – collected information from storage devices); determining an amount of energy consumed by the storage system to perform the plurality of I/O operations (calculate power consumption – [0039]; [0049][0054][0055][0062]-[0069]; power (i.e., energy in unit time) is calculated using IOPS; thus the calculation determines the energy consumed to perform the IO operations); and generating an energy usage effectiveness of the storage system ([0042]-[0046][0055][0064][0065][0066][0070] - least efficient workload/aggregate is identified; GUI provides recommendations/suggestion to increase efficiency by moving/relocating workload) based on a number of the plurality of I/O operations performed by the storage system ([0042][0054] [0061]-[0064] mention about IOPS) and the amount of energy consumed by the storage system to perform the plurality of I/O operations ([0054]-[0055] [0062]-[0064] power consumed for the IOPS to calculate IOPS/watt; Fig 2 and [0058][0060][0061] mentions how to compute power).
For claim 18, Stabler et al teach the following limitations: A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions ([0012] [0147]) which, when executed, cause a processing device (Fig 8; processor 816; [0098]-[0099]), to: receiving, from a storage system (Fig 1 is the storage system; Fig 8 processor 816 and system 814; API mentioned in [0040[]-[0041] obtains information; [0033][0039][0099][0089][0108]), one or more indications that a plurality of input/output (I/O) operations have been performed by the storage system (information obtained by API indicates IOPS performed by the storage system; [0041]-[0042] determined metrics is IOPS/watt and metrics is determined from information; [0033][0054][0061][0073][0083]; thus number of input/output operations information is received by management agent 148 and other components [0039]; [0005] – collected information from storage devices); determining an amount of energy consumed by the storage system to perform the plurality of I/O operations (calculate power consumption – [0039]; [0049][0054][0055][0062]-[0069]; power (i.e., energy in unit time) is calculated using IOPS; thus the calculation determines the energy consumed to perform the IO operations); and generating an energy usage effectiveness of the storage system ([0042]-[0046][0055][0064][0065][0066][0070] - least efficient workload/aggregate is identified; GUI provides recommendations/suggestion to increase efficiency by moving/relocating workload) based on a number of the plurality of I/O operations performed by the storage system ([0042][0054] [0061]-[0064] mention about IOPS) and the amount of energy consumed by the storage system to perform the plurality of I/O operations ([0054]-[0055] [0062]-[0064] power consumed for the IOPS to calculate IOPS/watt; Fig 2 and [0058][0060][0061] mentions how to compute power).
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.
Claim(s) 5-7, 14-16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stabler (US Patent 20240045698; cited in IDS), and further in view of Honnavara-Prasad (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0183476).
For claim 5 and claim 14, Stabler et al teach executing the machine learning algorithms ([0045] [0091]) and generate modifications to scheduling ([0091] recommendations, [0075] recommendations include schedule changes). Stabler does not explicitly mention about AI model. Honnavara-Prasad teaches the AI model to modify scheduling of IO operations ([0025] Fig 1Fig 5). It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include AI model to determine the scheduling modifications, since AI can optimize power and performance in the system ([0003] Honnavara-Prasad).
For claim 6 and claim 15, Stabler teaches wherein the storage system is part of a data center comprising a plurality of storage systems (Fig 12). Stabler further teaches selective scheduling to reduce power consumption ([0067]). Stabler does not mention receiving a maximum power available to the plurality of storage systems of the data center; and modify scheduling of I/O operations to be performed by the plurality of storage systems to cause an amount of power consumed by the plurality of storage systems to not exceed the maximum amount of power. Honnavara-Prasad teaches receiving a maximum power available to the plurality of storage systems ([0035] power is maintained below a threshold level; the threshold level power is the maximum available power for the system); and modify scheduling of I/O operations to be performed by the plurality of storage systems to cause an amount of power consumed by the plurality of storage systems to not exceed the maximum amount of power ([0035] selective scheduling to throttle power below threshold). It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to receive the maximum power and modifying scheduling so as not to cause the exceeding of the maximum power. That way power consumption can be optimized.
For claim 7 and claim 16, Stabler and Honnavara-Prasad teaches slow processing of one or more of the I/O operations to reduce the amount of power consumed by the plurality of storage systems (putting nodes to sleep [0075] Stabler; [0035] Honnavara-Prasad – NOOP operation to reduce power consumption).
Claims 8 and 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stabler (US Patent 20240045698; cited in IDS), and further in view of Honnavara-Prasad (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0183476), further in view of Cheng (US Patent Application Publication 20210026688).
For claims 8 and claim 17, Stabler and Honnavara-Prasad teaches wherein the processing device is further configured to: modify scheduling of a plurality operations across the plurality of storage systems to cause power consumption associated with the plurality operations and the subsequent plurality of I/O operations to not exceed the maximum power available (putting nodes to sleep [0075] [0066]-0067] – migration to other nodes [0122]-[0124] Stabler; [0035] Honnavara-Prasad – NOOP operation to reduce power consumption below threshold). Stabler and Honnavara-Prasad do not explaicitly mention about background operations. These background operations are well known in the art (Cheng [0073] modifying scheduling for background operation). It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the background operations and modify scheduling for the background operations so as to exceed the power available, since background operations can be switched to lower performance system and the system can be optimized while staying within power boundaries.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8159. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 AM - 7 PM. 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, Andrew Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. 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.
/FAHMIDA RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175