DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
For independent claims 21, 37, and 40,
Step 2A prong 1: The claims are considered an exception because they recite concepts that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or using pen and paper, and they do not necessarily require generic or any computer components to be completed. The claims recite computer components (devices, services, multivariate testing framework, computers, storage devices, and computer storage media) involved in the method/system/media performing mryhod steps, however that does not change the fact that the operations/steps can still be performed in the mind only, and that the computer components are not necessary. All the steps recited fall under the planning phase of how to deal with imbalances: receiving user information (about services and devices) can be performed by talking/listening, or reading a printout. Generating/setting a threshold is very simple operation that can be done in the mind. Determining an imbalance does not positively mean that any system components are actually running and causing an imbalance; it is simply an intermediate step before deciding how to deal with the theoretical imbalance, using an unspecified action. The “multivariate testing framework” merely provides the context of the planning. It is not a positively claimed component or environment.
Step 2A prong 2: The recited additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because (i) receiving user information is mere data collection and thus is an insignificant pre-solution activity; (ii) corrective action to mitigate the imbalance is equivalent to the action of planning how to balance an imbalance, which is an insignificant post-solution activity because it does not specify how the imbalance is corrected and to what extent it is corrected; It merely means attempt to right the wrong; (iii) the multivariate testing system is not positively claimed; it is merely provided as an environment or conceptual framework; (iv) the objects of the determining and evaluating operations are not sufficiently complex and/or laborious that would mandate the use of actual computing components in operation.
Step 2B: The claim recites the additional activities/components of (i) implementing a corrective action to mitigate the determined imbalance and (ii) multivariate testing framework. Office is taking official notice that these are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/components.
For claims 22 and 38, the claim further specifies that “the user information is received from a computer system that assigns the first version of the service to the first set of devices and the second version of the service to the second set of devices“. The claim repests limitations from independent claim and adds that the information is from a computer system that does the assigning. The computer system is not positively claimed as part of the system that performs the method; the method of the system accepts the information that processed from a different system; this falls under observation (Step 2A prong 2: pre-solution activity) and even if it were, the computing system is not necessary (Step 2A prong 1), and the addition is not an operation that can be analyzed according to the Berkheimer Memo (Step 2B).
For claims 23 and 39, the claim further specifies that “generating alternative samplings of devices including the third set of devices and the fourth set of devices that are assigned to the first version and the second version of the service, respectively “. The claim repests limitations from independent claim and adds generating alternative samplings of devices. Alternative sampling means changing how often imbalances are checked for. This can still be performed in the mind (Step 2A prong 1) and this does not integrate the claim to a practical application because it’s not sufficiently complex and/or laborious or meaningful (Step 2A prong 2). Office is taking official notice that alternative sampling is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (Step 2B).
For claim 24, the claim further specifies that the alternative samplings of devices comprises: performing one or more permutations on values representing segments or variants of the user information indicating the first set of devices assigned the first version of the service and the second set of devices assigned the second version of the service. Performing permutations falls under formula and is not sufficiently complex and/or laborious to require computers or meaningful (Step 2A prong 2). Office is taking official notice that performing permutations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (Step 2B).
For claim 25, the claim further specifies that the alternative samplings of devices comprise: sampling from a distribution indicating a numerical range of types of devices assigned to the first version or the second version of the service, where the types of devices that receive either the first version or the second version of the service is independent from the types of devices. Claim repeats limitations and sampling showing a range of numbers of types of devices is basically sorting by type and counting which can still be performed in the mind (Step 2A prong 1) and is not sufficiently complex and/or laborious to require computers or meaningful to integrate to a practical application (Step 2A prong 2). Office is taking official notice that sorting by type is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (Step 2B).
For claim 26, the claim further specifies that generating the third set of devices expected to be assigned to the first version of the service and the fourth set of devices expected to be assigned to the second version of the service by generating values representing at least (i) a number of devices of a first segment assigned to the first version of the service, (ii) a number of devices of a second segment assigned to the second version of the service, (iii) a number of devices of the first segment assigned to the second version of the service, and (iv) a number of devices of the second segment assigned to the first version of the service. Claim repeats limitations and generating values to previously claimed components is the same as classifying. Classifying can still be performed in the mind (Step 2A prong 1) and is not sufficiently complex and/or laborious to require computers or meaningful to integrate to a practical application (Step 2A prong 2). Office is taking official notice that classifying by type is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (Step 2B).
For claim 27, the claim further specifies generating the third set of devices expected to be assigned to the first version of the service and the fourth set of devices expected to be assigned to the second version of the service. Claim repeats limitations and adds that the devices are generated. Generating devices is viewed as setting values for devices, which can still be performed in the mind (Step 2A prong 1). This is not sufficiently complex and/or laborious to require computers or meaningful to integrate to a practical application (Step 2A prong 2). Such generating is not a specialized activity that can be analyzed according to the Berkheimer Memo (Step 2B).
For claim 28, the claim further specifies generating the third set of devices expected to be assigned to the first version of the service and the fourth set of devices expected to be assigned to the second version of the service comprises: generating (i) one or more values indicating a number of devices of a specific type expected to be assigned the first version and (ii) one or more values indicating a number of devices of a specific type expected to be assigned the second version of the service. This is basically categorizing and counting devices, which can still be performed in the mind (Step 2A prong 1). This is not sufficiently complex and/or laborious to require computers or meaningful to integrate to a practical application (Step 2A prong 2). Such counting and categorizing is not a specialized activity that can be analyzed according to the Berkheimer Memo (Step 2B).
For claim 29, the claim further specifies the devices of the specific type are devices operating in a specific region, operating with a specific language preference, operating on a specific hardware, or operating on a specific software. This in general applies to all devices, in which in this claim, the devices are still in the planning phase, as indicated in claim 21, This is a mere attribute of the devices: attributing can still be performed in the mind (Step 2A prong 1). This is not sufficiently complex and/or laborious to require computers or meaningful to integrate to a practical application (Step 2A prong 2). Such attributing is not a specialized activity that can be analyzed according to the Berkheimer Memo (Step 2B).
For claim 30, the claim further specifies generating the imbalance threshold for determining the imbalance using the user information comprises: generating one or more difference values indicating a difference between (i) a sample of alternative samplings of devices assigned to the first version of the service and the second version, respectively, and (ii) the third set of devices expected to be assigned to the first version of the service and the fourth set of devices expected to be assigned to the second version of the service. The claim includes repetition of limitations from independent claim. The claim adds generating differences values, which is a formula (Step 2A prong 1). This is not sufficiently complex and/or laborious to require computers or meaningful to integrate to a practical application (Step 2A prong 2). Such generating is not a specialized activity that can be analyzed according to the Berkheimer Memo (Step 2B).
For claim 31, the claim further specifies generating the imbalance threshold comprises selecting an alpha-quantile of a difference distribution, wherein the difference distribution is computed by comparing (i) a sample of alternative samplings of devices assigned to the first version of the service and the second version, respectively, and (ii) the third set of devices expected to be assigned to the first version of the service and the fourth set of devices expected to be assigned to the second version of the service. The claim includes repetition of limitations from independent claim. The claim also adds computing differences distribution and selecting alpha quantile, which is a mathematical formula (Step 2A prong 1). This is not sufficiently complex and/or laborious to require computers or meaningful to integrate to a practical application (Step 2A prong 2).
For claim 32, the claim further specifies generating one or more difference values between (i) the user information, indicating the first set of devices and the second set of devices, and (ii) the third set of devices expected to be assigned to the first version of the service and the fourth set of devices expected to be assigned to the second version of the service; and wherein determining the imbalance using the user information and the imbalance threshold comprises determining that the one or more difference values generate a difference value that is equal to or greater than the imbalance threshold. The claim includes repetition of limitations from independent claim. The claim also adds a calculation based on a mathematical formula (Step 2A prong 1). This is not sufficiently complex and/or laborious to require computers or meaningful to integrate to a practical application (Step 2A prong 2).
For claim 33, the claim further specifies implementing the corrective action to mitigate the determined imbalance in the multivariate testing framework comprises: generating a notification for a testing device; and transmitting the notification to the testing device. The claim includes repetition of limitations from independent claim. The claim adds an unspecified extra post-solution activity and is not meaningful to integrate to a practical application (Step 2A prong 2).
For claim 34, the claim further specifies the notification is configured to halt one or more data processing processes on the testing device. This addition is an extra post-solution activity (Step 2A prong 2) that does not add meaning because the processes halted are not specified and thus viewed as once performed in the mind (see rejection to claim 1).
For claim 35, the claim further specifies implementing the corrective action to mitigate the determined imbalance in the multivariate testing framework comprises: generating a signal configured to assign additional devices to the first version or the second version to reduce the determined imbalance. The claim includes repetition of limitations from independent claim. The claim basically causes the assignment of additional devices for the purpose of reducing the imbalance. Since it’s only assigning, i.e. no devices are necessarily actually running, it can be done in the mind (Step 2A prong 1). Assigning is not sufficiently complex and/or laborious to require computers or meaningful to integrate to a practical application (Step 2A prong 2). If the devices are actually added and running, then take official notice that such strategy of assigning is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (Step 2B).
For claim 36, the claim further specifies the additional devices comprise a device of a particular type represented by one or more device or user features associated with the determined imbalance. The claim adds that a device is represented by a feature, associated with a user and imbalance. Representing by a feature can be done in the mind (Step 2A prong 1). Items are associated with each other by being in the same system. This is not sufficiently complex and/or laborious to require computers or meaningful to integrate to a practical application (Step 2A prong 2). Such representing is not a specialized activity that applies to the Berkheimer Memo (Step 2B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
For claims 21, 37, and 40, the term “determining the imbalance” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim because an imbalance was not declared earlier, only the imbalance threshold was. It is suggested the claim be amended to “determining [[the]] an imbalance”.
For claim 29, the term “the devices of the specific type” is unclear and thus indefinite because two sets of devices of a specific type were declared in earlier claim, and so it is unclear to which the claim refers to. It is suggested the claim be amended to “[[the]] devices of [[the]] a specific type”.
Dependent claims inherit rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 31 is 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 and all 35 USC § 112 and 35 USC § 101 rejections are overcome.
Reasons for Allowability
For dependent claim 31,
The claim is allowable because although prior art has been found to teach rebalancing in multivariate testing using a threshold, no prior art was found to teach: ”selecting” an alpha-quantile of a difference distribution, wherein the difference distribution is computed by comparing (i) a sample of alternative samplings of devices” as it pertains to the other portions of the claim, in a manner that would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine it as an obvious inclusion.
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.
Claims 21-22, 26-30, 32-38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dar (US 2022/0229560 A1), and further in view of Roder (US 2015/0102216 A1).
For claim 21,
Dar teaches a method comprising: receiving user information indicating a first set of devices assigned to a first version of a service and a second set of devices assigned to a second version of the service in a [] testing framework (see paragraphs [0080], [0027-0028], [0039], [0049], figures 1-2: view system 10 as said claimed testing framework as it is running I/O load tests; view physical storage devices 16n and/or Logical devices/units/volumes 110i as said claimed devices; there are multiple LUNs or physical disks per data storage system 12; also disks are in RAID groups; view groups/”multiples per” as said claimed 1st/2nd sets; there are more sets; view hosts 14i and/or servers/nodes 102i as said claimed versions of service, as they provide services of storage; see [0031], [0038] for receiving from user; see [0004], [0058], [0161]: view designate/provision/assign/allocate as said claimed assign); generating an imbalance threshold (see [0005]) using a third set of devices expected to be assigned to the first version of the service and a fourth set of devices expected to be assigned to the second version of the service (see [0004], [0033], [0049]: LUNs can be added, provisioned, and transfer ownership to servers/nodes/hosts, which in turn can create an imbalance at a future point; view adding more or too many LUNs to same servers, potentially causing a future imbalance, as said claimed 3rd/4th sets to 1st/2nd services), wherein the imbalance threshold indicates whether there is an imbalance in the [] testing framework (see [0005]); determining the imbalance in the [] testing framework using the user information and the imbalance threshold; and implementing a corrective action to mitigate the determined imbalance in the [] testing framework (see abstract and other locations: rebalance means detecting an imbalance and correcting it).
Dar does not explicitly teach multivariate (testing).
However, Roder teaches multivariate (see [0075-0076] and other locations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dar to include “multivariate”, as taught by Roder, because each one of Dar and Roder teach rebalancing imbalances therefore they are analogous arts and because when teasing is more complicated, i.e. multiple, simultaneous changes for combination of elements, multivariate approach is called for (see [0075-0076] and other locations).
For claim 22,
The combination of Dar and Roder teaches the limitations of claim 21 for the reasons above.
Dar further teaches the user information is received from a computer system that assigns the first version of the service to the first set of devices and the second version of the service to the second set of devices (see [0031]: user used user interface which means computer system).
For claim 26,
The combination of Dar and Roder teaches the limitations of claim 21 for the reasons above.
Dar further teaches generating the third set of devices expected to be assigned to the first version of the service and the fourth set of devices expected to be assigned to the second version of the service (as recited in claim 21) by generating values representing at least (i) a number of devices of a first segment assigned to the first version of the service, (ii) a number of devices of a second segment assigned to the second version of the service, (iii) a number of devices of the first segment assigned to the second version of the service, and (iv) a number of devices of the second segment assigned to the first version of the service (see [0166] and figure 5: table shows the number of LUNs/devices and respective path to hosts/servers).
For claim 27,
The combination of Dar and Roder teaches the limitations of claim 21 for the reasons above.
Dar further teaches generating the third set of devices expected to be assigned to the first version of the service and the fourth set of devices expected to be assigned to the second version of the service (see [0028], [0049]: each LUN, which is a type of its own, has a LUN number, regardless to who it is assigned to; Also additional Physical devices are counted).
For claim 28,
The combination of Dar and Roder teaches the limitations of claim 27 for the reasons above.
Dar further teaches generating the third set of devices expected to be assigned to the first version of the service and the fourth set of devices expected to be assigned to the second version of the service (as recited in claim 27) )comprises: generating (i) one or more values indicating a number of devices of a specific type expected to be assigned the first version and (ii) one or more values indicating a number of devices of a specific type expected to be assigned the second version of the service (see [0049], figure 5: additional devices are counted and presented in table 310; view count as said claimed value indicating a number).
For claim 29,
The combination of Dar and Roder teaches the limitations of claim 28 for the reasons above.
Dar further teaches the devices of the specific type are devices operating in a specific region, operating with a specific language preference, operating on a specific hardware, or operating on a specific software (see [0019]: view different physical sites as region).
For claim 30,
The combination of Dar and Roder teaches the limitations of claim 21 for the reasons above.
Dar further teaches generating the imbalance threshold for determining the imbalance using the user information comprises: generating one or more difference values indicating a difference between (i) a sample of alternative samplings of devices assigned to the first version of the service and the second version, respectively, and (ii) the third set of devices expected to be assigned to the first version of the service and the fourth set of devices expected to be assigned to the second version of the service (included in Hotelling’s t-squared distribution: view undertaking tests of the differences between the (multivariate) means of different populations as said claimed differences).
For claim 32,
The combination of Dar and Roder teaches the limitations of claim 21 for the reasons above.
Dar further teaches generating one or more difference values between (i) the user information, indicating the first set of devices and the second set of devices, and (ii) the third set of devices expected to be assigned to the first version of the service and the fourth set of devices expected to be assigned to the second version of the service (see [0057], [0175]: counting of storage devices and calculating difference between them); and wherein determining the imbalance using the user information and the imbalance threshold comprises determining that the one or more difference values generate a difference value that is equal to or greater than the imbalance threshold (see [0126]: difference between current utilization and the specified threshold as said claimed determining the imbalance).
For claim 33,
The combination of Dar and Roder teaches the limitations of claim 21 for the reasons above.
Dar further teaches implementing the corrective action to mitigate the determined imbalance in the multivariate testing framework comprises: generating a notification for a testing device; and transmitting the notification to the testing device. (see [0009]: notifying host when change in path is made due to rebalancing)
For claim 34,
The combination of Dar and Roder teaches the limitations of claim 33 for the reasons above.
Dar further teaches the notification is configured to halt one or more data processing processes on the testing device (see [0009]: processing is delayed until preferred path is available; view delaying as said halting).
For claim 35,
The combination of Dar and Roder teaches the limitations of claim 21 for the reasons above.
Dar further teaches implementing the corrective action to mitigate the determined imbalance in the multivariate testing framework comprises: generating a signal configured to assign additional devices to the first version or the second version to reduce the determined imbalance (see [0004], [0033], [0049]: LUNs can be added, provisioned, and transfer ownership to servers/nodes/hosts for rebalancing)
For claim 36,
The combination of Dar and Roder teaches the limitations of claim 35 for the reasons above.
Dar further teaches the additional devices comprise a device of a particular type represented by one or more device or user features associated with the determined imbalance (see [0004]: view selecting device to move for rebalancing as said adding particular type).
For claims 37 and 40,
The claims recite essentially similar limitations as claim 21. Claim 37 is a system and claim 40 is media.
For claim 38,
The claim recites essentially similar limitations as claim 22. Claim 38 is a system
Claims 23-25 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dar (US 2022/0229560 A1), in view of Roder (US 2015/0102216 A1), and in further view of Wikipedia “Multivariate testing in marketing” from date 11/30/2021, retrieved using the WAY Back Machine, hereafter referred to as WBM113021mvt.Multivariate testing is by definition, based on the statistical Hotelling’s t-squared distribution.
For claim 23,
The combination of Dar and Roder teaches the limitations of claim 21 for the reasons above.
The combination of Dar and Roder does not teach generating alternative samplings of devices
Dar further taught (devices) including the third set of devices and the fourth set of devices that are assigned to the first version and the second version of the service, respectively (see rejection to claim 21)
However, WBM113021mvt teaches generating alternative samplings of devices (see design of experiments section: view taking permutations and combinations (of items/devices) to be tested as said alternative sampling)
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 combination of Dar and Roder to include “generating alternative samplings of devices”, as taught by WBM113021mvt, because each one of WBM113021mvt, Dar, and Roder teach multivariate testing therefore they are analogous arts and because this feature is generic and part of the definition of Multivariate testing (see [0075-0076] and other locations).
For claim 24,
The combination of Dar, Roder, and WBM113021mvt teaches the limitations of claim 23 for the reasons above.
WBM113021mvt further teaches generating the alternative samplings of devices comprises: performing one or more permutations on values representing segments or variants of the user information (see design of experiments section and rejection to claim 23)
Dar further taught indicating the first set of devices assigned the first version of the service and the second set of devices assigned the second version of the service (see rejection to claim 21).
For claim 25,
The combination of Dar, Roder, and WBM113021mvt teaches the limitations of claim 23 for the reasons above.
WBM113021mvt further teaches generating the alternative samplings of devices comprises: sampling from a distribution indicating a numerical range of types of devices (included in Hotelling’s t-squared distribution), where the types of devices that receive either the first version or the second version of the service is independent from the types of devices (by definition the items in a vector are independent)
Dar further taught assigned to the first version or the second version of the service (see rejection to claim 21).
For claim 39,
The claim recites essentially similar limitations as claim 23. Claim 39 is a system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wikipedia “Hotelling's T-squared distribution” page in support of the statistics behind multivariate testing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAIR LEIBOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-3796. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/YAIR LEIBOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights