DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-10 are pending for examination. Claims 8-10 are new.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informality:
Change to “2. The storage management system according to claim 1, wherein, upon failure of the high-level storage management interface to execute the job, the storage management system identifies a job associated with the fault by acquiring, from the storage management interface
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites:
10. The storage management system according to claim 1, wherein, after successful execution of a job associated with one of the low-level storage management interfaces, the storage management system synchronizes the route interdependence data and the storage interdependence data between the master node and the slave node.
In the Remarks paperwork, filed 05/21/2026, on page 22, Applicant asserts that the “present application: ¶ 0102-0104,” provides support for the claim. However, those paragraphs appear to be obtained from the pre-grant publication, not the specification as filed.
¶ 0043 and ¶ 0058 of the instant specification on file appear to have the closest support for Claim 10. However, these paragraphs describe “asynchronization” and not “synchronization” as claimed.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the job" in page 3. It is unclear as to which job is being referred to:
Claim 1: “…generate job interdependence metadata upon successful execution of a job by the high-level storage management interface; and
Claim 1: “…identify a fault associated with one of the low-level storage management interfaces upon failure of the high-level storage management interface to execute a job, the identifying being performed by use of (i) the storage management interface interdependence data and (ii) the job interdependence metadata.”
Claim 3: “…in a case where execution of a job by the high-level storage management interface has failed and where the automatic rollback is absent, the storage management system acquires, from the storage management interface interdependence data, interdependence data on the job being executed before notifying the high-level storage management interface of interdependence between jobs of the low-level storage management interfaces along with error-related information.”
Because Claims 4-6 depend upon Claim 3, Claims 4-6 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the job" in page 4. It is unclear as to which job is being referred to:
Claim 1: “…generate job interdependence metadata upon successful execution of a job by the high-level storage management interface; and
Claim 1: “…identify a fault associated with one of the low-level storage management interfaces upon failure of the high-level storage management interface to execute a job, the identifying being performed by use of (i) the storage management interface interdependence data and (ii) the job interdependence metadata.”
Claim 3: “…in a case where execution of a job by the high-level storage management interface has failed and where the automatic rollback is absent, the storage management system acquires, from the storage management interface interdependence data, interdependence data on the job being executed before notifying the high-level storage management interface of interdependence between jobs of the low-level storage management interfaces along with error-related information.”
Claim 6: “6. The storage management system according to claim 3, wherein the storage management system recovers from the fault by retrying a job interdependent with the job associated with the fault.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the master node" in page 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the slave node" in page 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-3, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 7 recite:
…generate storage management interface interdependence data describing information regarding interdependence between the storage management interfaces upon calling of one of the low-level storage management interfaces depending on use status of the low- level storage management interfaces;
generate interdependence metadata upon successful execution of a job by the high-level storage management interface; and
identify a fault associated with one of the low-level storage management interfaces upon failure of the high-level storage management interface to execute a job,
the identifying being performed by use of (i) the storage management interface interdependence data and (ii) the job interdependence metadata.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 1 is a machine.
Claim 7 is a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘identify’ limitation in # 3 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing an observation and/or an evaluation associated with data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘generate’ limitations in # 1 and 2 above, as claimed and under BRI, are additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses one or more of mere data gathering or mere data manipulation (e.g. displaying or outputting). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘being performed’ limitation in # 4 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, “performing” in the context of this claim encompasses using generic computer components to apply the identifying step. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Additionally, one or more of the claims recite the following additional elements:
more than one set of storage (Claims 1 and 7),
multiple sites (Claims 1 and 7),
low-level storage management interfaces (Claims 1 and 7), and
a high-level storage management interface (Claims 1 and 7).
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply an exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply an exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally, with regards to # 1 and 2 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claim 2 recites:
wherein, upon failure of the high-level storage management interface to execute the job, the storage management system identifies a job associated with the fault by acquiring, from the storage management interface interdependence data, interdependence data on the job being executed when the failure occurred.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The abstract idea(s) of Claim 1 is/are the same as the abstract idea(s) of Claim 2.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘acquiring’ limitation in # 5 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “acquiring” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to # 5 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); and
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claim 3 recites:
the storage management interface interdependence data includes automatic rollback presence/absence data, and
in a case where execution of a job by the high-level storage management interface has failed and where the automatic rollback is absent, the storage management system acquires, from the storage management interface interdependence data, interdependence data on the job being executed before notifying the high-level storage management interface of interdependence between jobs of the low-level storage management interfaces along with error-related information.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The abstract idea(s) of Claim 1 is/are the same as the abstract idea(s) of Claim 3.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
In # 6 above, the claimed storage management interface interdependence data is merely further described in the context of a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The ‘acquires’ limitation in # 7 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “acquiring” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to # 7 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); and
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claim 5 recites:
in a case where the automatic rollback is present, the storage management system periodically notifies the high-level storage management interface of the interdependence between jobs of the low-level storage management interfaces along with execution status information regarding each task.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The abstract idea(s) of Claim 3 is/are the same as the abstract idea(s) of Claim 5.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘notifies’ limitation in # 8 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “notifying” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data outputting / manipulation. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to # 8 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claim 8 merely further describes the claimed storage management interface interdependence data in the context of a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 9 recites:
wherein generating the storage management interface interdependence data comprises determining, from a request received via the high-level storage management interface, a copy-pair relation between a master node and a slave node, and
generating the storage management interface interdependence data based on the determined copy-pair relation.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘determining’ limitation in # 9 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person performing an observation and/or an evaluation associated with data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘generating’ limitation in # 10 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, “notifying” in the context of this claim encompasses using generic computer components to apply the determining step. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karp et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 8,909,987 B2), hereinafter “Karp.”
With regards to Claim 1, Karp teaches:
a storage management system for managing more than one set of storage set up at multiple sites (Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 53-67; and col. 3, lines 1-4; regarding, e.g., a large-scale computing system including, e.g., computers [more than one set of storage] housed in multiple data centers [multiple sites].), by using low-level storage management interfaces provided respectively for the sets of storage (Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 21-35; regarding, e.g., communication modules; Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 55-65; regarding, e.g., a module associated with at least process C; and col. 7, lines 32-36; regarding, e.g., any downstream neighbors of the process C.), the storage management system further having a high-level storage management interface integrally controlling the low-level storage management interfaces (Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 21-35; Fig. 2; and col. 4, lines 55-65; regarding, e.g., a module associated process B.), the storage management system comprising:
a processor (Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 58-60.); and
a memory storing instructions (Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 58-60.) that, when executed by the processor, cause the storage management system to:
generate storage management interface interdependence data describing information regarding interdependence between the storage management interfaces upon calling of one of the low-level storage management interfaces depending on use status of the low-level storage management interfaces (Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 55-67; col. 5, lines 1-25; and col. 6, lines 20-47.);
generate job interdependence metadata upon successful execution of a job by the high-level storage management interface (Fig. 2 and col. 7, lines 10-52; regarding, e.g., a recovery message with a unique tag T.); and
identify a fault associated with one of the low-level storage management interfaces upon failure of the high-level storage management interface to execute a job, the identifying being performed by use of (i) the storage management interface interdependence data and (ii) the job interdependence metadata (col. 3, lines 14-18; regarding, e.g., a large-scale application and/or an enterprise workflow; Fig. 2; and col. 7, lines 10-52; regarding, e.g., a particular process A, B, or C of the large-scale application and/or the enterprise workflow [a job].).
With regards to Claim 2, Karp teaches the system of Claim 1 as referenced above. Karp further teaches:
wherein, upon failure of the high-level storage management interface to execute the job, the storage management system identifies a job associated with the fault by acquiring, from the storage management interface interdependence data, interdependence data on the job being executed when the failure occurred (Fig. 2 and col. 7, lines 10-52.).
With regards to Claim 7, the system of Claim 1 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 7, and Claim 7 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 1 by the teachings of Karp.
With regards to Claim 8, Karp teaches the system of Claim 1 as referenced above. Karp further teaches:
wherein the storage management interface interdependence data comprises route interdependence data (Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 55-67; col. 5, lines 1-25; regarding, e.g., communications data; and col. 6, lines 20-47.) and storage interdependence data (Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 55-67; col. 5, lines 1-25; regarding, e.g., checkpoint messages data; and col. 6, lines 20-47.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4, 6, and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 with regards to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Remarks argue that:
Amended independent Claim 1 is directed to a storage management system for managing more than one set of storage set up at multiple sites using low-level storage management interfaces provided respectively for the sets of storage and a high-level storage management interface integrally controlling the low-level storage management interfaces. The claim further requires a processor and memory storing instructions that cause the system to generate storage management interface interdependence data, generate job interdependence metadata, and identify a fault associated with one of the low-level storage management interfaces upon failure of the high-level storage management interface to execute a job. These are not generalized mental steps. They are operations performed in a specific distributed storage architecture using specific interface relationships and generated interdependence data.
New Claim 8 requires that the storage management interface interdependence data comprise route interdependence data and storage interdependence data. That limitation is directly grounded in the disclosed implementation, where the API interdependence data generation unit includes a route interdependence data structure creation program and a storage interdependence data structure creation program.
New Claim 9 further requires that generating the storage management interface interdependence data comprise determining, from a request received via the high-level storage management interface, a copy-pair relation between a master node and a slave node, and generating the interdependence data based on that determined copy-pair relation. That is a concrete storage-copy control operation. The specification expressly describes detecting a request for the high-level abstract API, determining whether a copy-pair relation is determined from the request, creating copy-source- node-directed route interdependence data, and creating copy-destination storage interdependence data from node information included in the request.
Claims 3-5 likewise reinforce the practical application. Amended Claim 3 requires that the storage management interface interdependence data include automatic rollback presence/absence data and, when automatic rollback is absent, that the system acquire interdependence data on the job being executed before notifying the high-level storage management interface of interdependence between jobs of the low-level storage management interfaces along with error-related information. The specification expressly discloses an interdependence data structure- based faulty job rollback presence/absence determination program, describes determining whether automatic rollback is present on the faulty job on the basis of the interdependence data structure, and describes identification of the faulty job based on route interdependence data.
The amended claims now expressly recite a processor and memory storing instructions, but more importantly, they recite a highly specific combination of technological features and operations:
multi-site storage management,
low-level storage management interfaces respectively provided for storage sets,
a high-level storage management interface integrally controlling the low-level interfaces,
generation of storage management interface interdependence data,
generation of job interdependence metadata,
fault identification using both categories of data,
route interdependence data and storage interdependence data,
determination of a copy-pair relation between a master node and a slave node,
synchronization of route interdependence data and storage interdependence data,
rollback presence/absence determination,
recovery from an automatic recovery checkpoint, and
periodic notification tied to task execution status.
Those limitations amount to a specific fault-detection and recovery framework for distributed storage management, not to generic application of an abstract concept.
The hardware/software implementation is also expressly disclosed. The fault detection and recovery system includes CPU 41, storage unit 42, and interface 43, with programs stored in the storage unit and executed by the CPU to configure the API interdependence data generation unit, the job interdependence data generation unit, the site interdependence data asynchronization unit, the API fault identification and recovery unit, and the user notification unit.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regards to A and F above, Applicant asserts “a specific distributed storage architecture using specific interface relationships and generated interdependence data” but then merely refers to “a processor and memory” (per A and F) and an interface (per F) as being “expressly disclosed” (per F). A processor, a memory, and an interface, as claimed and under BRI, cannot be considered specific components to anything specialized. There are merely generic computer components performing generic computer instructions as outlined above in this Office action.
With regards to B above, Applicant uses the wording “directly grounded.” The Examiner is unable to determine what this means. Is Applicant referring to a special definition? The Examiner respectfully asserts that there is none found within the disclosure and, as claimed and under BRI, Claim 8 is merely referring to types of general data.
With regards to C above, Applicant uses the wording “concrete” and “expressly described.” The Examiner is unable to determine what these mean. Is Applicant referring to a special definition? The Examiner respectfully asserts that there is none found within the disclosure and, as claimed and under BRI, Claim 9 is merely referring to a type of general data.
With regards to D above, Applicant uses the wording “expressly discloses.” The Examiner is unable to determine what this means. Is Applicant referring to a special definition? The Examiner respectfully asserts that there is none found within the disclosure and, as claimed and under BRI, Claim 3 is merely referring to a type of general data.
With regards to E above, the Examiner asserts that none of the listed features or operations are highly specific. They amount to abstract ideas or generic computer components, features, and/or operations.
For at least the reasoning provided above, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-9 are maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 with regards to 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Remarks argue that:
… Karp's communication module is merely a network-communication component for a computing device, and Karp's processes A, B, and C are parts of a large-scale computing application. Nothing in Karp discloses or suggests low-level storage management interfaces provided respectively for storage sets, much less a high-level storage management interface integrally controlling them.
Karp discloses dependence sets between parent and child processes created by application messages. Those dependence sets track whether a child process is conditional on a parent process for purposes of checkpoint/recovery consistency. That is categorically different from Applicants' claimed storage management interface interdependence data, which in the Present Application is generated in connection with the multi-site storage-management interface architecture and includes, for example, route interdependence data and storage interdependence data tied to a copy-pair relation between a master node and a slave node.
Karp's checkpoints, checkpoint messages, and recovery messages are not "job interdependence metadata" generated upon successful execution of a job by a high-level storage management interface. Karp's tags and dependence sets are part of a recovery-segment protocol for distributed application processes. They are not metadata generated upon successful execution of a high-level storage-management job.
Karp discloses reacting to failure of a parent process by having dependent child processes recover to a checkpoint that avoids orphan-message effects. That is not the same as identifying a fault associated with one of the low-level storage management interfaces upon failure of the high-level storage management interface to execute a job.
Karp does not identify a job associated with a fault by acquiring interdependence data on the job being executed when the failure occurred from storage management interface interdependence data. Rather, Karp discloses parent/child process dependencies and recovery following parent process failure. There is no disclosure of a high-level storage management interface failing to execute a job, no disclosure of identifying a faulty storage-management job from storage management interface interdependence data, and no disclosure of the claimed relation between the fault and the job being executed.
New claim 8 recites that the storage management interface interdependence data comprises route interdependence data and storage interdependence data. Karp has no such disclosure.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regards to G above, it appears to the Examiner that Applicant is trying to assert that the claimed storage management interfaces cannot be software modules within data centers. However, Applicant’s specification does not exclude software from being an interface between two or more components. There is nothing known to one skilled in the art suggesting that the term “storage management interfaces” has special meaning in the art that excludes software. As such, under BRI, the Examiner asserts that his citations in this Office action are reasonable.
Additionally, the Examiner respectfully asserts that data centers comprising computers are reasonably interpreted to be a distributed storage system. All computers comprise storage; therefore, the computers in the data centers of Karp are an example of a storage system.
With regards to H above, Applicant asserts a claimed term is “categorically different” than Karp without providing any reasoning as to why other than to re-recite some language that is generally associated with one or more of the claims.
With regards to I, J, K, and L above, Applicant asserts a claimed term is not taught by Karp without providing any reasoning as to why other than, e.g., “it’s not the same” or “there is no disclosure.”
The Examiner asserts that his citations above in this Office action are reasonable with regards to at least Claims 1, 2, 7, and 8.
For at least the reasoning provided above, the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of Claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 are maintained.
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 JOSEPH KUDIRKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5pm ET.
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.
/JOSEPH R KUDIRKA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights