DETAIL ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The instant application having application No. 19/237,589 has a total of 20 claims pending in the application; there are 3 independent claims and 17 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
INFORMATION CONCERNING IDS:
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner and a copy (copies) of PTOL-1449(s) initiated and signed by the Examiner is/are attached.
INFORMATION CONCERNING DRAWING:
3. The applicant’s drawings submitted on 06/13/2025 are acceptable for examination purposes.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THE EXAMINER:
4. The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
DARJI et al. (US 2023/0418524 A1)) teaches “…The generative AI model may include audio and visual recognition capabilities as well as natural language processing that enables the generative AI to identify the issue that is described within the content. The generative AI model may be trained in storage system management and troubleshooting using training sets that include, but are not limited to, support personnel training manuals, service tickets, storage system configurations and components, or any other types of content associated with managing and/or troubleshooting storage systems. The generative AI model may also have access to a storage system database that includes information received from storage systems, including issues associated with the storage systems and solutions to those issues. The generative AI model may further have access to historical information associated with these storage systems…” (par. 0316, applicant entity, does not qualify as a prior art).
SINGH et al. (US 20240296314 A1) teaches “…FIG. 1 also shows a generative AI model experimentation, evaluation, and development platform (generative AI development platform) 114 which can be used by a developer to develop prompts and other mechanisms for accessing the generative AI models in layer 104. Prompt/response storage system 116 can be used to store prompts and responses in user/tenant data shards ...” (par. 0028).
Mukherjee (US 20250117644 A1) teaches “… using structured information for improved training of generative AI models in accordance with one or more example embodiments. Referring to FIG. 2A, at step 201, the generative AI host platform 102 may establish a connection with the information storage system 103. For example, the generative AI host platform 102 may establish a first wireless data connection with the information storage system 103 to link the generative AI host platform 102 to the information storage system 103 (e.g., in preparation for obtaining historical information). In some instances, the generative AI host platform 102 may identify whether a connection is already established with the information storage system 103. If a connection is already established with the information storage system 103, the generative AI host platform 102 might not re-establish the connection. Otherwise, if the connection is not yet established with the information storage system …” (par. 0035).
Information concerning claims:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to abstract ideas. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
7. When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (Step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B). Examples of abstract ideas include mental process, mathematical concept, and mathematical relationships/formulas.
Analysis (see MPEP 2106)
8. Claims 1-8 recite “A method, comprising receiving, from a user, a request associated with a storage…”. Claims 9-16 recite A system comprising: a memory. Claims 17-20 recite “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions…”. Therefore, claims are directed to system and method. Therefore, they are directed to a machine and process, which are included in the four categories of invention (step 1-yes).
9. The independent claim 1 analyzed to determine whether directed to any judicial exception. The independent claim 1 recites, in part, the limitations “generating, using the generative AI model and based on the telemetry data, a response to the request”, which could be a mental process. Specifically, humans could view or analyze telemetry data and generate a response in their mind. Therefore, the claim directed an abstract idea.
10. Next, claim 1 is analyzed to determine whether there are additional limitations recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 1 additionally recites:
“receiving, from a user, a request associated with a storage system directed to a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model; accessing, in response to the request, telemetry data generated by the storage system;”
The above limitations recite a method comprising receiving from a user a request associated with a storage system directed to generative artificial intelligence (AI) model and accessing telemetry data generated by the storage system. These additional limitations provide input data (e.g., telemetry data) to generate a response (e.g., perform the abstract idea. The claim does not include limitations that are significantly more than abstract idea.
11.The independent claim 9 recites, in part, the limitations “generate, using the generative AI model and based on the telemetry data, a response to the request”, which could be a mental process. Specifically, humans could view or analyze telemetry data and generate a response in their mind. Therefore, the claim directed an abstract idea.
12. Next, claim 9 is analyzed to determine whether there are additional limitations recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 9 additionally recites:
“a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory, the processing device configured to: receive, from a user, a request associated with a storage system directed to a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model; access, in response to the request, telemetry data generated by the storage system;”
The above limitations recite the processing device configured to: receive, from a user, a request associated with a storage system directed to a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model; access, in response to the request, telemetry data generated by the storage system. These additional limitations (like independent claim 1) are used to provide input data (e.g., telemetry data) to generate a response (e.g., perform the abstract idea). The claim does not include limitations that amount to significantly more than abstract idea.
13. The independent claim 17 recites, in part, the limitations “generate, using the generative AI model and based on the telemetry data, a response to the request”, which could be a mental process. Specifically, humans could view or analyze telemetry data and generate a response in their mind. Therefore, the claim directed an abstract idea.
14. Next, claim 17 is analyzed to determine whether there are additional limitations recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 17 additionally recites:
“A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instruction which, when executed, cause a processing device to:
receive, from a user, a request associated with a storage system directed to a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model; access, in response to the request, telemetry data generated by the storage system.
The above limitations recite receive, from a user, a request associated with a storage system directed to a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model; access, in response to the request, telemetry data generated by the storage system. These additional limitations (like independent claims 1 and 9) are used to provide input data (e.g., telemetry data) to generate a response (e.g., perform the abstract idea). The claim does not include limitations that amount to significantly more than abstract idea.
15. Claims 2, 10, and 18 dependents from claims 1, 9, and 17, respectively recite “wherein the response is generated based on the domain-specific information”.
The limitation is like limitation recited in claim 1, 9, and 17 except the telemetry data is replaced by domain-specific information, which could be a mental process. Specifically, humans could view or analyze domain-specific information and generate a response in their mind. The claims do not include limitations that amount to significantly more than abstract ideas.
16. Claims 3 and 11 dependents from claims 1 and 9, respectively recite “wherein the response is generated based on the intermediary response from each of the secondary generative AI models”. The claim recites a plurality of secondary generative AI models; each associated with different types of domain-specific information. Generating the intermediary response from each of the secondary generative Al models based on different types of domain-specific information does not amount to significantly more than abstract idea.
17. claims 4, 12, and 19 and 5, 13, and 20 dependents on claims 3, 11, and 18, respectively recite “wherein each of the plurality of secondary generative AI models are trained using different types of domain-specific information” and “different types of domain-specific information are accessible to each of the plurality of secondary generative AI models”. Having different types of domain-specific information and using different types of domain-specific information to train Ais do not
18. claims 6 and 14 dependent on claims 1 and 9 respectively, recite “wherein the response comprises user interface data for presenting at least a portion of the response to the user”. Using a user interface to present response to the user does not amount to significantly more than abstract idea.
19. claims 7 and 15 dependent on claims 1 and 9, recites the limitation “generating one or more suggested requests; and providing the one or more suggested requests to the user”. Generating one or more requests and providing the requests to the user does not amount to significantly more than abstract idea.
20. claims 8 and 16 dependent on claims 1 and 9, recites the limitation(s) “wherein the response comprises one or more actions to be applied to the storage system and wherein the method further comprises providing the response to an agent configured to perform one or more user interface interactions based on the one or more actions via a graphical user interface (GUI) of the storage system presented on a client device of the user”. Applying one or mor action to storage system and provide the response via a graphical user interface (GUI) of the storage system presented on a client device of the user does not amount to significantly more than abstract idea.
Direction OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCES:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASHEM FARROKH whose telephone number is (571)272-4193. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Tim Vo can be reached on (571)272-3642. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see htto://pair-direct.uspto.gov. For questions regarding access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786- 9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HASHEM FARROKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138
Prosecution Insights