DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an amendment filed on July 22, 2026 for the application of Abe for a “System configuration proposal apparatus, system configuration proposal method, and recording medium” filed on March 12, 2025. 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 and 3-12 are pending in the application.
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, and 10-12 have been amended.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 USC § 102.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Specification
In view of the amendments to the title, the previous objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
In view of the amendments, the previous objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the amendments, the previous rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
In view of the amendments, the previous rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Robins et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8880801).
As per claims 1, 11, and 12, Robins discloses a system configuration proposal apparatus/method/recording medium for proposing information related to a system configuration for a storage system (col. 4, lines 42-59) to a user (Fig. 9, element 364, “processing may proceed to step 364 where the current candidate configuration, along with its associated assessment information with respect to reliability and availability, may be output such as on a user interface (UI) display.”), comprising:
a processor and a storage device (Fig. 1), wherein the storage device is configured to store availability level information related to availability levels for a plurality of storage systems (Fig. 9, elements 360 and 362) and (col. 22, lines 22-32, “processing proceeds to step 360 to determine availability information or a current level of availability for the candidate configuration. The availability information determined at step 360 may be characterized as a metric providing a net availability indicator for the candidate configuration in a manner similar to that as described herein for reliability information. At step 362, a determination is made as to whether the availability information determined in step 360 for the current candidate configuration meets (e.g., is greater than) an availability threshold.”), the availability level information including information of a maintenance cycle and an availability level at the maintenance cycle (col. 37 through col. 38, lines 1-5, “With reference to FIGS. 10 and 11, once the various rates for repair µ and failure λ are determined, the reliability for a storage pool may be determined based on the RAID-group level reliability calculations for one or more RAID groups having different storage media types in the storage pool.”), and
wherein the processor is configured to: receive a condition including an availability level requested of a storage system by the user (col. 21, lines 6-9, “allow a user to input an acceptable level or tolerance for risk (e.g., LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH) which may be mapped to predefined thresholds for availability and/or reliability”),
identify a storage system candidate that satisfies the availability level included in the condition on the basis of the availability level information (Fig. 9, elements 362 and 364), and
output information related to a system configuration for the identified storage system candidate by displaying a configuration proposal screen as a user interface on a display (Fig. 9, element 364) and (col. 22, lines 40-43, “processing may proceed to step 364 where the current candidate configuration, along with its associated assessment information with respect to reliability and availability, may be output such as on a user interface (UI) display.”), and
receive, from a terminal, an updated condition input via the user interface of the configuration proposal screen (col. 40, lines 12-15, “The user may modify the current configuration to an alternative candidate configuration. In forming this alternative or revised candidate configuration, the user may utilize the displayed information of 430.”) and automatically identify, in real time, a storage system candidate that satisfies the availability level included in the updated condition on the basis of the availability level information and update the configuration proposal screen in real time to display information related to a system configuration for the automatically identified storage system candidate (col. 40, lines 33-38, “On recalculating, revised results are displayed in 840 such as included in columns 837b, 838b, 839b and 833b respectively for unreliability, unavailability, availability and a risk ranking of storage tiers. Based on the displayed values goals or thresholds for availability and reliability may be met by this revised configuration of 840.”).
As per claim 3, Robins discloses the condition includes a maintenance cycle requested of the storage system, and wherein the processor is configured to identify a storage system candidate that satisfies the availability level and the maintenance cycle included in the condition (col. 37 through col. 38, lines 1-5, “With reference to FIGS. 10 and 11, once the various rates for repair µ and failure λ are determined, the reliability for a storage pool may be determined based on the RAID-group level reliability calculations for one or more RAID groups having different storage media types in the storage pool.”).
As per claim 4, Robins discloses the condition includes a system model type requested of the storage system, and wherein the processor is configured to identify a storage system candidate that satisfies the availability level and the system model type included in the condition (Fig. 9).
As per claim 5, Robins discloses a model type of the system model includes a hybrid cloud that includes an on-premises storage cluster and a cloud storage cluster (col. 6, lines 15-32).
As per claim 6, Robins discloses the information related to the system configuration for the storage system candidate includes an overview diagram of the system configuration for the storage system candidate (Figs. 11-14).
As per claim 7, Robins discloses the storage device is configured to store failure probability information related to failure probabilities about a plurality of components that constitute a plurality storage systems (Fig. 13) and configuration information related to system configurations in the plurality of storage systems (Fig. 10), and wherein the processor is configured to estimate an availability level for each of the storage systems on the basis of the failure probability information and the configuration information and store in the storage device the estimated availability level as the availability level information (col. 37, lines 22-52).
As per claim 8, Robins discloses the processor is configured to: when there is no storage system candidate that satisfies the condition, identify a kind of condition that is not satisfied and a content for the kind of the condition that can be satisfied and output the kind of the condition and the content of the condition (Fig. 16).
As per claim 9, Robins discloses the processor is configured to, when there are a plurality of storage system candidates that satisfy the availability level included in the condition, output a less costly storage system candidate with priority from among the plurality of storage system candidates (col. 21, lines 27-31, “Cost and performance may also be used as an optimization or additional evaluation criteria such as when ranking various candidate storage pool configurations which meet availability and reliability thresholds.”).
As per claim 10, Robins discloses the processor is configured to: accept change of the availability level, and update and output, in real time, information related to a system configuration for a storage system candidate that satisfies the accepted availability level (col. 40, lines 22-33).
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.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20170132056) in view of Ozaki et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20240103885).
As per claims 1, 11, and 12, Epstein discloses a system configuration proposal apparatus/method/recording medium for proposing information related to a system configuration ([0009]) for a storage system to a user ([0029], “the network administrator would get an alert that describes the required reconfiguration”), comprising:
a processor and a storage device, wherein the storage device is configured to store availability level information related to availability levels for a plurality of storage systems ([0024], “The event statistics manager is configured to use the data collected by the history manager to calculate and store the observed distribution of joint failure events and statistical metrics such as the expected number of joint failure events (e.g., number of failed disks and number of failed servers) for a pre-defined time period (e.g., a year). The durability and availability calculator is configured to use event statistics, in particular expected number of joint failure events, calculated by events statistics calculator to calculate durability and availability according to probabilistic durability and availability models.”), the availability level information including information of a maintenance cycle ([0022], “calculating a recovery time for each failed device based on the network recovery bandwidth, disk recovery bandwidth and simultaneous failures of devices”) and an availability level at the maintenance cycle ([0022]-[0024]), and
wherein the processor is configured to: receive a condition including an availability level requested of a storage system by the user ([0028], “As shown at block 402, the method 400 includes receiving an availability requirement for a distributed storage system and a durability requirement of the distributed storage system”),
identify a storage system candidate that satisfies the availability level included in the condition on the basis of the availability level information ([0028], “as shown at block 410, the method 400 includes identifying a subset of the plurality of configurations of the distributed storage system in which the expected availability satisfies the availability requirement and in which the expected durability satisfies the durability requirement.”), and
output information related to a system configuration for the identified storage system candidate ([0028], identifying a subset of the plurality of configurations of the distributed storage system in which the expected availability satisfies the availability requirement and in which the expected durability satisfies the durability requirement. The method 400 also includes selecting a preferred configuration of the distributed storage system from the subset”).
Epstein fails to explicitly disclose a configuration proposal screen.
Ozaki of analogous art teaches displaying a configuration proposal screen (Fig. 3, “the configuration plan presentation screen 300”) as a user interface on a display ([0052]-[0055]), and
receive, from a terminal, an updated condition input via the user interface of the configuration proposal screen (Fig. 2) and ([0050]-[0051]) and automatically identify, in real time, a storage system candidate that satisfies the availability level included in the updated condition ([0106], “Further, the input/output apparatus 141 outputs the candidate for the system configuration to be proposed and the evaluation value corresponding to the configuration request and accepts input of correction of the configuration request, and the processor 111 determines the candidate for the system configuration to be proposed again in accordance with the correction.”) on the basis of the availability level information and update the configuration proposal screen in real time to display information related to a system configuration for the automatically identified storage system candidate ([0095]-[0097], “the management computer 101 can calculate sizing requirements on the basis of policies regarding a business type, a scale and availability of the target system, select a system configuration by a combination of cloud service functions that satisfy the policies, and derive candidates for an optimal system configuration in recommended order on the basis of the calculated sizing requirements and cost information.”).
All of the claimed elements were known in Epstein and Ozaki and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing language to combine their storage configuration methods. One would be motivated to make this combination since Ozaki’s user interface is a mere example of Epstein’s display.
As per claim 3, Epstein discloses the condition includes a maintenance cycle requested of the storage system, and wherein the processor is configured to identify a storage system candidate that satisfies the availability level and the maintenance cycle included in the condition (Figs. 3-4).
As per claim 4, Epstein discloses the condition includes a system model type requested of the storage system ([0003], “cloud storage”), and wherein the processor is configured to identify a storage system candidate that satisfies the availability level and the system model type included in the condition ([0020]).
As per claim 5, Epstein discloses a model type of the system model includes a hybrid cloud ([0003], “cloud storage”) that includes an on-premises storage cluster and a cloud storage cluster ([0020]).
As per claim 6, Epstein discloses the information related to the system configuration for the storage system candidate includes an overview diagram of the system configuration for the storage system candidate ([0028]).
As per claim 7, Epstein discloses the storage device is configured to store failure probability information related to failure probabilities about a plurality of components that constitute a plurality storage systems ([0023], “probabilistic models for calculating the probability of data loss and data unavailability for disk and server failures event and non-recoverable bit errors”) and configuration information related to system configurations in the plurality of storage systems ([0023]-[0027]), and wherein the processor is configured: to estimate an availability level for each of the storage systems on the basis of the failure probability information and the configuration information and store in the storage device the estimated availability level as the availability level information ([0023]-[0027]) and (Fig. 4).
As per claim 8, Epstein discloses the processor is configured to: when there is no storage system candidate that satisfies the condition, identify a kind of condition that is not satisfied ([0023], “probabilistic models for calculating the probability of data loss and data unavailability for disk and server failures event and non-recoverable bit errors”) and a content for the kind of the condition that can be satisfied and output the kind of the condition and the content of the condition (Fig. 4).
As per claim 9, Epstein discloses the processor is configured to, when there are a plurality of storage system candidates that satisfy the availability level included in the condition, output a less costly storage system candidate with priority from among the plurality of storage system candidates ([0028], “the preferred configuration of the distributed storage system may be selected based on a cost associated with each of the configurations in the subset and based on the expected availability and durability”) and (Fig. 4, element 412).
As per claim 10, Epstein discloses the processor is configured to: accept change of the availability level, and update and output, in real time, information related to a system configuration for a storage system candidate that satisfies the accepted availability level ([0029]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed on July 22, 2026 necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection in this Office action. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments regarding Epstein have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of Epstein in view of Ozaki, as set forth in this office action.
Applicant's arguments filed on July 22, 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections by Robins et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8880801) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per claims 1, 11, and 12 applicant argues that Robins fails to teach the claimed limitation of “output information related to a system configuration for the identified storage system candidate by displaying a configuration proposal screen as a user interface on a display, and receive, from a terminal, an updated condition input via the user interface of the configuration proposal screen and automatically identify, in real time, a storage system candidate that satisfies the availability level included in the updated condition on the basis of the availability level information and update the configuration proposal screen in real time to display information related to a system configuration for the automatically identified storage system candidate”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to point out to col. 22, lines 40-43, wherein Robins discloses “processing may proceed to step 364 where the current candidate configuration, along with its associated assessment information with respect to reliability and availability, may be output such as on a user interface (UI) display.”
Outputting candidate configurations on a user interface display as disclosed by Robins reads on the above limitation of “output information related to a system configuration for the identified storage system candidate by displaying a configuration proposal screen as a user interface on a display” as recited in claim 1. As per claims 11 and 12, same reasons as claim 1 apply.
Note col. 40, lines 12-15, wherein Robins discloses “The user may modify the current configuration to an alternative candidate configuration. In forming this alternative or revised candidate configuration, the user may utilize the displayed information of 430.”
Further note col. 40, lines 33-38, wherein Robins discloses “On recalculating, revised results are displayed in 840 such as included in columns 837b, 838b, 839b and 833b respectively for unreliability, unavailability, availability and a risk ranking of storage tiers. Based on the displayed values goals or thresholds for availability and reliability may be met by this revised configuration of 840.”.
A user modifying/revising configurations and displaying the revised results in response to the user’s modifications as disclosed by Robins reads on the above limitation of “receive, from a terminal, an updated condition input via the user interface of the configuration proposal screen and automatically identify, in real time, a storage system candidate that satisfies the availability level included in the updated condition on the basis of the availability level information and update the configuration proposal screen in real time to display information related to a system configuration for the automatically identified storage system candidate” as recited in claim 1. As per claims 11 and 12, same reasons as claim 1 apply.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 Elmira Mehrmanesh whose telephone number is (571)272-5531. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bryce Bonzo, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3655. The fax phone 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Elmira Mehrmanesh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights