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
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/20/2025 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 10/22/2024 are accepted by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The limitation “receiving, by a fleet management service, data describing states of a plurality of storage systems in a fleet of storage systems; requesting, by the fleet management service and from a large language model (‘LLM’), a fleet management recommendation based on the data; and receiving, by the fleet management service and from the LLM, a fleet management recommendation for the fleet of storage systems", as drafted in claim 1, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Similar rational applies to other independent claims 11 (system claim) and 20 (medium claim). That is, other than reciting “by the fleet management service and from a large language model (‘LLM’)” nothing in the claims (1, 11, and 20) element precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “(at a non-personal information handling device,) using processor, (memory device, and storage device)” these steps encompasses a user manually “receiving”, and “requesting” the information collected and determining based on the collected information. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements recited in the independent claims—i.e. “requesting by the fleet management service and from a large language model (‘LLM’)” are nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activities (i.e. a pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, and a post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions. See MPEP 2106.05 (g)). Further, the Information Processing Apparatus is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a personal computer (PC) or the like may be applied to the information processing apparatus. Moreover, adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (e.g., processor, memory, computer, CRSM having program code) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 4 (2019-01-07); MPEP 2106.05(f).
Also, the combination of these additional elements merely defines performing these functions on a generic computer component and do not constitute an improvement in technology. Further, the claimed invention merely outputting the similarity (recited at a high level of generality) for a user to decide the next steps. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic computer component to perform the “receiving” and “requesting” functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Moreover, the functions of collecting information and outputting data are a mere steps to gather data and output a result on to a display based on the analysis, are insignificant pre and post-solution activities See MPEP 2106.05 (g). As noted above, the combination of these elements merely defines performing these functions by a generic computer component.
Therefore, claims 1, 11 and 20 are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The dependent claims fail to obviate such rejections and are themselves rejected under this title for they are also abstract ideas and fall outside the plainly expressed scope of this title.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al. (US Pub No. 2019/0235765, hereinafter “Crawford”) in view of Sheikh et al. (US Pub No. 2023/0368284, hereinafter “Sheikh”).
Regarding claim 1, Crawford does disclose, a method comprising: receiving, by a fleet management service, data describing states of a plurality of storage systems in a fleet of storage systems (Crawford, (para. [0119]), the planning module 402 generates projected workload (i.e. data) behavior, which is one or more files, possibly included in the configuration file 412, that describe the expected behavior of the known and anticipated workloads over a near term view and a long term view, the long term view being greater in duration than the near term view; (para. [0026]), one or more networks 104, 106, 108, may represent a cluster of systems commonly referred to as a “cloud.”); requesting, by the fleet management service and [from a large language model (‘LLM’)], a fleet management recommendation based on the data (Crawford, (para. [0125]), in response to a determination that the existing storage system is not configured to handle the unanticipated workload, modifications that will put the storage system in condition to handle the unanticipated workload are determined by the management module 404 and/or the planning module 402, which will specify particular components/upgrades to the existing storage system); and receiving, by the fleet management service and [from the LLM], a fleet management recommendation for the fleet of storage systems (Crawford, (para. [0050]), one output from the planning module 402 that is available after the computations is referred to as a “purchase file” 422, which may be sent to the user(s) 416. The purchase file 422 includes details about all components of an original storage system after planning for the original storage system has concluded. Moreover, in other approaches, the purchase file 422 may include future/anticipated system components and/or upgrades (i.e. recommendation) that will be required to be purchased and installed in the storage system over the forward-looking time period to satisfy the existing and anticipated workload).
Crawford does not explicitly disclose but the analogous art Sheikh does disclose, from a large language model (‘LLM’) (Sheikh, (para. [0063, 0066, 0068]), the service request can be received from the artificial intelligence model (AI-model) based on the Large Language Model (LLM) to generate natural language responses or carry out tasks).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sheikh by including from a large language model (‘LLM’) taught by Sheikh for the advantage of improving personalization, efficiency, and relevance in fulfilling the service requests (Sheikh, (para. [0071])).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Crawford-Sheikh does disclose, the method of claim 1 further comprising applying the fleet management recommendation to the fleet of storage systems (Crawford, (para. [0125]), … the planning module 402, which will specify particular components/upgrades to the existing storage system).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Crawford-Sheikh does disclose, the method of claim 1 further comprising providing the fleet management recommendation to a user (Crawford, (para. [0050]), one output from the planning module 402 that is available after the computations is referred to as a “purchase file” 422, which may be sent to the user(s) 416. ... …, the purchase file 422 may include future/anticipated system components and/or upgrades that will be required to be purchased and installed in the storage system over the forward-looking time period to satisfy the existing and anticipated workloads).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Crawford-Sheikh does disclose, the method of claim 1 wherein the information is received from the fleet of storage systems (Crawford, (para. [0156]), where a configuration file of a storage system is received at a management module).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Crawford-Sheikh does disclose, the method of claim 1 wherein receiving the fleet management recommendation comprises receiving, as the fleet management recommendation, a performance recommendation (Crawford, (para. [0005]), determining, by the management module, whether a first performance metric for a first workload operating on the storage system deviates from a projected workload behavior for the first workload by more than a threshold amount).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Crawford-Sheikh does disclose, the method of claim 5 wherein the performance recommendation comprises a workload migration recommendation (Crawford, (para. [0037]), the end user may be notified of the deviation, and possibly the storage system provider in order to design a suitable modification to the storage system to handle the unexpected workload).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Crawford-Sheikh does disclose, the method of claim 1 wherein receiving the fleet management recommendation comprises receiving, as the fleet management recommendation, a security recommendation (Crawford, (para. [0130]), additions/modifications may be suggested to one or more storage systems to account for the unanticipated workload(s). In another approach, an alert and/or notification may be sent to the user(s) 418 indicating the under-capacity issue).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Crawford-Sheikh does disclose, the method of claim 7 wherein the fleet of storage systems is associated with a particular entity and requesting the fleet management recommendation further comprises requesting the fleet management recommendation based on one or more cohorts of the particular entity (Crawford, (para. [0118]), such workload definitions and expected workload behavior may be included in a similar fashion to the other information included in the exemplary configuration file 412, with indicators for the parameters being reported and the actual parameters, which may include numbers, descriptions, sizes, requirements, anticipated growth/decline, etc.).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Crawford-Sheikh does disclose, the method of claim 1 wherein the data comprises performance information for the fleet of storage systems (Crawford, (para. [0132]), the management module 404 may monitor the various performance metrics routinely, on a periodic basis, continuously, or however frequently such a performance metric is most useful to be monitored without impeding operation of the storage system or utilizing more resources than the monitoring process is worth).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Crawford-Sheikh does disclose, the method of claim 1 wherein the data comprises configuration information for the fleet of storage systems (Crawford, (para. [0124]), the management module 404 and/or the user(s) 418 may determine whether the existing storage system is configured to handle the unanticipated workload with its current configuration, or whether more capacity is needed to handle the unanticipated demand).
Regarding claim 11, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 12, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 2. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
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 9. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 10. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, the substance of the claimed invention is similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 10,353,634, “data volumes can be created on specific storage tiers that are selected specifically to be of adequate performance for most data volumes. Storage tiers can include, for example, types of storage hardware, such as magnetic (e.g., disk or tape) or solid state drive (SSD) storage, and/or types of storage systems, such as in-memory (local) storage, block storage, object storage, archival storage, or general cloud storage systems which may each have different system or network architectures. In other embodiments, a customer might select an initial storage tier or past customer behavior might be used to select the initial storage tier, among other such options. Once the data volume begins accepting I/O requests, for example, the usage of that data volume can be monitored and analyzed to attempt to determine patterns in the usage, or other such metrics, that can be used to determine a type of workload for the data volume. Once a type of workload is determined with sufficient confidence, the data volume can be migrated to a different storage tier that is optimized for that type of workload. This can include, for example, going from magnetic storage to solid state storage, or going from a block storage service to a general cloud storage service, among other such options. The data volume can be moved as appropriate over the lifetime of the data volume in order to optimize performance as well as to adapt to changes in the usage of the data volume. In at least some embodiments migrations can only occur after a minimum amount of time has passed since the last placement or migration of the data volume, in order to prevent frequent movement of the data volume due to minor variations in usage. In some embodiments, at least a minimum level of improvement in performance, or reduction in cost, must be predicted or calculated before a data volume can be migrated, among other such options”.
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