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 Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Referring to claim 14, “occurrent” is an adjective lacking a noun. This appears to have been intended to refer to “occurrence”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
At step 1, if no statutory category rejection was given above, then the claims have been determined to have a statutory category.
At step 2a, prong one, referring to claim 1, as emphasized, there is disclosed an apparatus comprising a generic processor that obtains data, determines (for latency and IOPS among perhaps other data) anomalous data points using machine learning anomaly detectors, identifies a corresponding anomalous data point, determines a performance issue based on co-occurrence, and initiates remediation for the performance issue. Claim 1 recited, “An apparatus comprising: at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory; the at least one processing device being configured: to obtain monitoring data for a storage system, the monitoring data comprising telemetry data for a set of two or more metrics, the set of two or more metrics including a latency metric and one or more additional metrics, the one or more additional metrics comprising one or more input-output operations per second metrics for input-output operations executing on the storage system; to determine for the latency metric, a first set of one or more metric-specific anomalous data points utilizing a first machine learning- based univariate anomaly detector trained utilizing historical telemetry data for that the latency metric; to determine, for the one or more additional metrics, one or more additional sets of one or more metric-specific anomalous data points utilizing one or more additional machine learning-based univariate anomaly detectors trained utilizing historical telemetry data for the one or more additional metrics; to determine, for the set of two or more metrics collectively, one or more metric- generic anomalous data points utilizing a machine learning-based multivariate anomaly detector trained to identify structural anomalies across the set of two or more metrics; to identify a given one of the one or more metric-specific anomalous data points for the latency metric which corresponds to one of the one or more metric-generic anomalous data points; to determine whether the given metric-specific anomalous data point for the latency metric represents a performance issue for the storage system based at least in part on identifying whether there are any co-occurring metric-specific anomalous data points in any of the one or more additional sets of one or more metrics-specific anomalous data points for the one or more additional metrics; and responsive to determining that the given metric-specific anomalous data point for the latency metric represents a performance issue for the storage system, to initiate remediation of the performance issue for the storage system.” Claims 15 and 18 are treated as similar.
The limitations of obtaining, determining, identifying, and determining, as crafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. That is, nothing in these claim elements as emphasized precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, possibly with the aid pen and paper. For example, these steps perform steps of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
At step 2a, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim additionally recites a generic computer (inclusive of the “machine” of machine learning to the degree it is necessary) and initiating remediation (which may include modifying a configuration a la claim 14).
The computer is recited at a high level of generality. The computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation of “initiating” remediating provides nothing more than mere instructions to (potentially) implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. This combination in this order merely uses the generic computer to implement analysis, resulting in a generic insignificant extrasolution remediation step that must follow that analysis.
At step 2b, 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, there are the additional elements of a generic computer and remediation.
The limitations regarding use of a computer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP2106.05(d), for example TLI Communications, Flook, Alice Corp, and Versata.
The recitation of “initiation” of remediation is at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). See MPEP 2106.05(g) In re Brown and Ameranth and MPEP 2106.05(d) Flook. Further, generally regarding remediation, but specifically where such remediation may be reconfiguration, this is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See for example 20240134727 paragraph 4, 20060215564 paragraph 65, 20230244793 paragraph 3, 20080263393 paragraph 9, 20100195425 paragraph 5, 20070271606 paragraph 6, 20200272576 paragraph 16, 20150293785 paragraphs 24-29, 20170308398 paragraph 4, 20170083585 paragraph 244, 20230342276 paragraph 49, 20160170650 paragraph 8.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Further referring to claims 2-3, this further describes steps of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
Further referring to claims 4-5, this further describes data.
Further referring to claims 6-13, this further describes steps of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
Further referring to claim 14, see above.
Further referring to claims 16, 17, 19, and 20, see claims 11, 12 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion (page 9) that the claims improve computer technology, the claims themselves are regarding a process of analysis regarding technology, the result of the analysis ultimately being for the purpose of “initiation” of remediation, albeit non-integratingly additional at best.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 11) that the human mind is not capable of implementing machine learning based univariate or multivariate anomaly detectors, these detectors (besides using the word “machine”) are merely generally descriptive of a process used to make a determination. “Machine learning” itself is descriptive of a process, presumably implemented by a machine.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (page 11-12) regarding Desjardins and the improvement of machine learning models themselves, it is unclear where the claimed invention improves machine learning itself. The machine learning claimed appears to merely reference generic machine learning and nothing claimed appears to improve that process per se. Instead, it appears that generic machine learning is used in its generic capacity to perform the claimed process of analysis. The use of an insignificant extrasolution generic machine to implement an algorithm that is used in an analytical process does not integrate the invention into practical application.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GABRIEL L CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-3656. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays 8 am to 5 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, 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.
/GABRIEL CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights