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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,353,321. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims are reciting same subject matter. A table is presented below for better comparison:
Parent patent
Instant application
A system comprising:
A system comprising:
a memory; and
a memory; and
a processing device operatively coupled to the memory, the processing device executing a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model configured to:
a processing device operatively coupled to the memory, the processing device executing a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model configured to:
receive content describing an intended usage of a storage system; analyze the content to identify the intended usage described by the content;
analyze received content to identify an intended usage, described by the content, of a storage system;
identify one or more configurations of the storage system that support the intended usage described by the content; and
identify one or more configurations of the storage system that support the identified intended usage; and
generate a response comprising the one or more configurations of the storage system.
generate a response comprising the one or more configurations of the storage system.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,353,321 in view of PEZESHKI et al. [US 2021/0195462 A1]
PEZESHKI teaches “wherein the content is received via a messaging interface selected from a text message interface, a messenger application, or a website.” as “if the software is transmitted from a website, server, or other remote source using a coaxial cable, fiber optic cable, twisted pair, digital subscriber line (DSL), or wireless technologies such as infrared (IR), radio, and microwave, then the coaxial cable, fiber optic cable, twisted pair, DSL, or wireless technologies such as infrared, radio, and microwave are included in the definition of medium.” [¶0132]
PEZESHKI is an analogous art because it teaches AI model and feedback based learning system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gottiparthy and PEZESHKI before him/her, to modify the teachings of Gottiparthy to include the teachings of PEZESHKI with the motivation of better support mobile broadband Internet access by improving spectral efficiency. [PEZESHKI, ¶0004]
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,353,321 in view of PEZESHKI et al. [US 2021/0195462 A1]
PEZESHKI teaches “wherein the content comprises an audio recording, video recording, image, or text.” as “Wireless communication systems are widely deployed to provide various telecommunication services such as telephony, video, data, messaging, broadcasts, etc.” [¶0003]
PEZESHKI is an analogous art because it teaches AI model and feedback based learning system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gottiparthy and PEZESHKI before him/her, to modify the teachings of Gottiparthy to include the teachings of PEZESHKI with the motivation of better support mobile broadband Internet access by improving spectral efficiency. [PEZESHKI, ¶0004]
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,353,321 in view of JONES et al. [US 2014/0359245 A1]
JONES teaches “wherein the generative artificial intelligence (AI) model is trained using training sets comprising support personnel manuals, service tickets, or historical storage system configurations.” as “The application could, in such an embodiment, determine and send stub commands for anticipated READs and WRITEs for the following day. In another example, an application capable of determining I/O access patterns can select a time based on an historical pattern of I/O operations.” [¶0023]
JONES is an analogous art because it teaches AI model and feedback based learning system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gottiparthy and JONES before him/her, to modify the teachings of Gottiparthy to include the teachings of JONES with the motivation of additional advantage of preventing the creation of a new map entry, e.g., in a B-Tree map, during heavy I/O load conditions. [JONES, ¶0011]
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,353,321 in view of Wu [US 2024/0195871 A1]
Wu teaches “wherein the generative AI model calculates a confidence score indicating a likelihood that the one or more configurations support the intended usage.” as “highly confident detections may be considered as triggers for AEB. In at least one embodiment, DLA may run a neural network for regressing confidence value.” [¶0180]
Wu is an analogous art because it teaches AI model and feedback based learning system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Gottiparthy and Wu before him/her, to modify the teachings of Gottiparthy to include the teachings of Wu with the motivation of DLA(s) may quickly and efficiently execute neural networks, especially CNNs, on processed or unprocessed data for any of a variety of functions. [Wu, ¶0167]
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,353,321 in view of Wu [US 2024/0195871 A1]
Wu teaches “wherein the response includes only the one or more configurations having confidence scores that exceed a threshold value.” as “In at least one embodiment, if confidence score exceeds a threshold, supervisory MCU may follow primary computer's direction, regardless of whether secondary computer provides a conflicting or inconsistent result.” [¶0224]
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,353,321. A table is presented below for better comparison:
Parent patent
Instant application
wherein the generative AI model utilizes natural language processing to identify the intended usage described by the content.
wherein the generative Al model utilizes natural language processing to identify the intended usage described by the content.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,353,321 under the same rationale of rejection of claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,353,321 in view of PEZESHKI et al. [US 2021/0195462 A1] under the same rationale of rejection of claim 2.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,353,321 in view of PEZESHKI et al. [US 2021/0195462 A1] under the same rationale of rejection of claim 3.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,353,321 in view of JONES et al. [US 2014/0359245 A1] under the same rationale of rejection of claim 4.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,353,321 in view of Wu [US 2024/0195871 A1] under the same rationale of rejection of claim 5.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,353,321 in view of Wu [US 2024/0195871 A1] under the same rationale of rejection of claim 6.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,353,321 under the same rationale of rejection of claim 7.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,353,321 under the same rationale of rejection of claim 1.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,353,321 in view of PEZESHKI et al. [US 2021/0195462 A1] under the same rationale of rejection of claim 2.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,353,321 in view of PEZESHKI et al. [US 2021/0195462 A1] under the same rationale of rejection of claim 3.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,353,321 in view of JONES et al. [US 2014/0359245 A1] under the same rationale of rejection of claim 4.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,353,321 in view of Wu [US 2024/0195871 A1] under the same rationale of rejection of claim 5.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,353,321 in view of Wu [US 2024/0195871 A1] under the same rationale of rejection of claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claim 1 recites: “a processing device operatively coupled to the memory, the processing device executing a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model configured to: analyze received content to identify an intended usage, described by the content, of a storage system; ”
Closest prior art PEZESHKI et al. [US 2021/0195462 A1] appears to teach AI modules for feedback of different parameters/parameter combinations and different compression ratios
MURATA et al. [WO 2020075796 A1] appears to teach an input section for inputting input information regarding at least one of the intended use and the used product and the server is a learning unit having an artificial intelligence function.
However, the prior arts of record do not appear to teach or fairly suggest a generative AI model for analyzing content of a storage system for intended use and based on that configuring the storage.
Therefore, claim 1 is considered allowable.
Independent claim 8 recites: “analyzing, by a processing device executing a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model, received content to identify an intended usage, described by the content, of a storage system;”
Closest prior art PEZESHKI et al. [US 2021/0195462 A1] appears to teach AI modules for feedback of different parameters/parameter combinations and different compression ratios
MURATA et al. [WO 2020075796 A1] appears to teach an input section for inputting input information regarding at least one of the intended use and the used product and the server is a learning unit having an artificial intelligence function.
However, the prior arts of record do not appear to teach or fairly suggest a generative AI model for analyzing content of a storage system for intended use and based on that configuring the storage.
Therefore, claim 8 is considered allowable.
Independent claim 15 recites: “analyze, using a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model, received content to identify an intended usage, described by the content, of a storage system;”
Closest prior art PEZESHKI et al. [US 2021/0195462 A1] appears to teach AI modules for feedback of different parameters/parameter combinations and different compression ratios
MURATA et al. [WO 2020075796 A1] appears to teach an input section for inputting input information regarding at least one of the intended use and the used product and the server is a learning unit having an artificial intelligence function.
However, the prior arts of record do not appear to teach or fairly suggest a generative AI model for analyzing content of a storage system for intended use and based on that configuring the storage.
Therefore, claim 15 is considered allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASUD K KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8am-5pm).
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, Hosain Alam can be reached at (571) 272-3978. 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.
/MASUD K KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights