DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 05/28/2026.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed on 05/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, the Applicant argues in substance that:
The cited references, Bao and Rehmeyer, either alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the limitation “wherein the range of the scaled intermediate temperature values provides continuity in calculated temperatures reported for controlling the temperature of the storage device”, as recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 20.
In response to argument:
a) Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Examiner would like to remind the applicant that the rejection is based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. The Applicant argues on pages 14-20 of the remarks that the cited art does not teach or suggest the limitation “wherein the range of the scaled intermediate temperature values provides continuity in calculated temperatures reported for controlling the temperature of the storage device.” However, Bao discloses the SSD temperature control strategy includes:… Composite temperature range Tn°-Tp°(i.e., lower temperature region): 75% concurrent I/O at the SSD backend; Composite temperature range Tp°-Tm°(a range of the scaled intermediate temperature region): SSD back-end concurrent I/O is 43%; Composite temperature > Tm°(upper temperature region): SSD back-end concurrent I/O is 10%) (see, [0065]-[0069]). Further, Bao discloses calculates a composite temperature based on the temperature values returned by each sensor in the SSD (see, [0073]). In other words, Bao calculates a composite temperature ranges of Tn°-Tp°, Tp°-Tm°, and composite temperature > Tm°, and these regions are defined in continuous pattern for controlling the temperature of the storage device, which corresponds to the limitation wherein the range of the scaled intermediate temperature values provides continuity in calculated temperatures reported for controlling the temperature of the storage device within the claim.
Thus, the combination of Bao and Rehmeyer meets the scope of broadly claimed limitation as currently presented.
b) In regard to 101 rejection, the Applicant has provided arguments, “… with the present amendments to the independent claims, the presently claimed inventions recite subject matter beyond that "conventional in the art,… Hence, the pending claims recite "significantly more" and therefore recite statutory subject matter. Additionally, it is clear from the specification that Applicant's invention represents an improvement in accuracy. Applicant disclosed (with emphasis added): [0030] The conventional CT calculation uses the composite temperature equation below: Tcomposite = max(T1, T2, T3, ... , TN) (eq. 1) where T1, T2, T3, ... , TN are the normalized (or adjusted) temperatures from all temperature reporting components. The CT calculation ensures that the component closest to overheating always dominates the reported composite temperature so that proper thermal throttling can occur.” (pages 11-14).
In response to argument:
b) In Response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Foremost, the decision of the Supreme Court in regard to Alice vs CLS Bank is succinctly discussed as follows. In their decision, Supreme Court has stated that the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract ideas (such as algorithms) into a patent eligible invention. Because the algorithm was an abstract idea, the claim had to supply a “new and useful" application of the idea in order to be patent eligible (Alice, Page 12). Furthermore, the additional limitations had to be significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself (Alice, page 7, 15).
Regarding independent Claim 1, we recognize that the limitations “segmenting calculation of the temperature of the storage device into calculations from a lower temperature region, an upper temperature region, and a scaling region between the lower temperature region and the upper temperature region; in the lower temperature region, determining a low temperature value…associated with at least one component of the storage device; in the upper temperature region, determining a highest temperature value of all sensors in order to protect the storage device from overheating; and in the scaling region, determining a range of scaled intermediate temperature value scaled with respect to a point of entry temperature into the scaling region, wherein the range of the scaled intermediate temperature values provides continuity in calculated temperatures reported for controlling the temperature of the storage device”, as abstract ideas. The abstract idea of claim 1 can be characterized as processes, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes and/or mathematical concepts.
Beyond the abstract idea, we next look at additional elements that can be considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In particular, the claim limitation “at least one sensor…. wherein the at least one sensor comprises a most-accurate sensor which is more accurate than other sensors in the low temperature region” is additional element. However, the claim limitation “at least one sensor…. wherein the at least one sensor comprises a most-accurate sensor which is more accurate than other sensors in the low temperature region”, is recited at a high level of generality, and is nothing more than data collection activity for gathering parameters using a well-known conventional sensors and activity previously known in the industry in order to execute an abstract idea, which also does not further limit and integrate the abstract idea in practical application, and as such, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As shown in the prior art, Bao et al. CN 115373938 A (hereinafter, Bao), ([0032]), and Rehmeyer et al. US 2022/0005523 (hereinafter, Rehmeyer), ([0017], [0022], Fig. 1), both show that the at least one sensor…. wherein the at least one sensor comprises a most-accurate sensor which is more accurate than other sensors in the low temperature region is well-understood and purely conventional in the relevant art and would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the abstract idea(s) and/or activities previously known to the pertinent industry, such that it amounts to no more than data collection or gathering required to perform the abstract idea.
In addition, the claim limitation “storage device” is also recited at a high level of generality without providing specific type of storage device. As it is well known to one ordinary skill in the art, the storage device may cover vast categories of storage device system, such as, computer data storage device, refrigerator storage devices, etc. As such, the claim(s) as a whole does/do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The specification mentions in [0030], [0074] as originally filed, “…system including a storage device such as for example an SSD and a controller for determining and/or controlling a temperature (e.g., a composite temperature) of the storage device…..a temperature of the storage device can be controlled based on the determined temperature by adjusting an amount of power being consumed by the storage device. In this embodiment, the power being consumed can be changed by reducing or increasing a clock rate speed of the storage device. Alternatively, the power being consumed can be changed by regulating a time when garbage collection occurs such as not to perform garbage collection when the determined temperature exceeds an upper temperature limit. Alternatively, the power being consumed can be changed by de-powering a number of storage modules (die) in the storage device when the determined temperature exceeds an upper temperature limit….” (see, [0030], [0074]). A controller configured to determine a composite temperature and adjusting an amount of power being consumed by the SSD and/or adjusting temperature of the SSD when the determined temperature exceeds an upper temperature limit, is significant more than the abstract idea itself, and integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner recommends amending the claims according to the above explanation in order to advance prosecution. As claimed today, the 101 rejection is maintained.
4. The objection to Figure 2 has been withdrawn in view the amendment.
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 therefor, 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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 1 recites:
A method for determining a temperature of a storage device for thermal management of the storage device, comprising:
segmenting calculation of the temperature of the storage device into calculations from a lower temperature region, an upper temperature region, and a scaling region between the lower temperature region and the upper temperature region;
in the lower temperature region, determining a low temperature value from at least one sensor associated with at least one component of the storage device, wherein the at least one sensor comprises a most-accurate sensor which is more accurate than other sensors in the low temperature region;
in the upper temperature region, determining a highest temperature value of all sensors in order to protect the storage device from overheating; and
in the scaling region, determining a range of scaled intermediate temperature value scaled with respect to a point of entry temperature into the scaling region, wherein the range of the scaled intermediate temperature values provides continuity in calculated temperatures reported for controlling the temperature of the storage device.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitation in the claim is only: at least one sensor…wherein the at least one sensor comprises a most-accurate sensor which is more accurate than other sensors in the low temperature region. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as collecting or gathering temperature values using sensors) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic sensors.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional limitation recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as collecting or gathering temperature values using generic sensors). Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Bao et al. CN 115373938 A (hereinafter, Bao), ([0032]), and Rehmeyer et al. US 2022/0005523 (hereinafter, Rehmeyer), ([0017], [0022], Fig. 1)). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4-10, 12, and 14-19, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3 and 13, recite addition element of “wherein the most-accurate sensor comprises a board sensor and the other sensors comprise a controller sensor and a memory sensor”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic sensors) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic sensors. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Bao, ([0027], [0032]), and Rehmeyer ([0017], [0022], Fig. 1). Therefore, claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claims 11 and 20, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 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 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.
7. Claims 1, 4-9, 11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. CN 115373938 A (hereinafter, Bao), in view of Rehmeyer et al. US 2022/0005523 (hereinafter, Rehmeyer).
8. Regarding claim 1, Bao discloses a method for determining a temperature of a storage device for thermal management of the storage device ([0001]), comprising:
segmenting calculation of the temperature of the storage device into calculations from a lower temperature region, an upper temperature region, and a scaling region between the lower temperature region and the upper temperature region ([0065]-[0069], [0073]: the SSD temperature control strategy includes:… Composite temperature range Tn°-Tp°: 75% concurrent I/O at the SSD backend; Composite temperature range Tp°-Tm°: SSD back-end concurrent I/O is 43%; Composite temperature > Tm°: SSD back-end concurrent I/O is 10%); wherein composite temperature ranges Tn°-Tp°, > Tm°, and Tp°-Tm°, are interpreted as equivalent to a lower temperature region, an upper temperature region, and a scaling region, respectively,
in the lower temperature region, determining a low temperature value from at least one sensor associated with at least one component of the storage device in the low temperature region ([0067], [0073]: calculates a composite temperature based on the temperature values returned by each sensor in the SSD);
in the upper temperature region, determining a highest temperature [values] of all sensors in order to protect the storage device from overheating ([0002], [0027], [0032]: based on the temperature values returned by each sensor in the SSD and the maximum designed temperature values of the NAND and controller chips, a composite temperature is calculated according to the invention's calculation formula. The software then adjusts the backend read/write speeds based on this composite temperature, thereby effectively cooling the SSD); Bao discloses determining a highest temperature values of all sensors in order to protect the storage device from overheating as shown above. Bao does not disclose determining a highest temperature value of all sensors. However, determining the highest temperature value of all sensors would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Bao as disclosed above, and
in the scaling region, determining a range of scaled intermediate temperature value scaled with respect to a point of entry temperature into the scaling region, wherein the range of the scaled intermediate temperature values provides continuity in calculated temperatures reported for controlling the temperature of the storage device ([0065]-[0069]: the SSD temperature control strategy includes:… Composite temperature range Tn°-Tp°: 75% concurrent I/O at the SSD backend; Composite temperature range Tp°-Tm°(i.e., a range of the scaled intermediate temperature values): SSD back-end concurrent I/O is 43%. Composite temperature > Tm°: SSD back-end concurrent I/O is 10%)….[Further], [0073]: calculates a composite temperature based on the temperature values returned by each sensor in the SSD).
Bao does not disclose:
wherein the at least one sensor comprises a most-accurate sensor which is more accurate than other sensors.
However, Rehmeyer discloses:
wherein the at least one sensor comprises a most-accurate sensor which is more accurate than other sensors ([0017], [0022]: one or more temperature sensors (not shown in FIG. 1) internal to all or a subset of the memory dies 200 of the memory system 100. Such internal temperature sensors are expected to provide more accurate indications of an individual memory device's 104 and/or an individual memory die's 200 internal temperature than provide by the temperature sensor 108).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bao to use wherein the at least one sensor comprises a most-accurate sensor which is more accurate than other sensors as taught by Rehmeyer. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine temperature of the storage device accurately (Rehmeyer, [0017]).
9. Regarding claims 11 and 20, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
10. Regarding claim 4, Bao in view of Rehmeyer disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Bao further discloses wherein the determining a low temperature value utilizes inputs from the sensor and at least one of the other sensors ([0057], [0067]).
Bao does not disclose:
most-accurate sensor.
However, Rehmeyer discloses:
most-accurate sensor ([0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bao to use most-accurate sensor as taught by Rehmeyer. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine temperature of the storage device accurately (Rehmeyer, [0017]).
11. Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 4.
12. Regarding claim 5, Bao in view of Rehmeyer disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Bao further discloses wherein the highest temperature value is reported for temperatures outside of a normal temperature operating range of the storage device ([0002], [0032]). See also Rehmeyer ([0019]).
13. Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 5.
14. Regarding claim 6, Bao in view of Rehmeyer disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Bao further discloses the normal temperature operating range of the storage device, and the point of entry into the scaling region is at an operating temperature ([0065]-[0070]: the SSD temperature control strategy includes:… Composite temperature range Tp°-Tm°: SSD back-end concurrent I/O is 43%; Composite temperature > Tm°: SSD back-end concurrent I/O is 10%…, the Tp and Tm are specifically configured by the technician as needed). Further, Rehmeyer discloses compare (i) a temperature measurement generated by the temperature sensor 108 and/or by one or more temperature sensors internal to the memory die(s) 200 to (ii) a threshold temperature value (e.g., 85° C.). .., the threshold temperature value can indicate a temperature threshold above... Stated another way, the threshold temperature value can indicate a temperature threshold below (and/or at) which there is little concern that data retention issues will arise due to the temperatures of the memory devices 104 (see, [0019]-[0020]). Bao in view of Rehmeyer does not disclose wherein the normal temperature operating is less than 77° C., and the point of entry into the scaling region is at an operating temperature of 70° C. However, setting normal temperature operating is less than 77° C., and the point of entry into the scaling region is at an operating temperature of 70° C would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Bao in view of Rehmeyer as explained above.
15. Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 6.
16. Regarding claim 7, Bao in view of Rehmeyer disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Bao further discloses wherein a first scaled intermediate temperature value of the scaled intermediate temperature values matches the low temperature value at the point of entry temperature into the scaling region and a second scaled intermediate value of the scaled intermediate temperature values matches the high temperature value at a point of exit temperature from the scaling region ([0067]-[0069]: the SSD temperature control strategy includes:… Composite temperature range Tn°-Tp°; Composite temperature range Tp°-Tm°, and Composite temperature > Tm°: SSD back-end concurrent I/O is 10%).
17. Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 7.
18. Regarding claim 8, Bao in view of Rehmeyer disclose the method of claim 7, as disclosed above.
Bao further discloses wherein the scaled intermediate temperature values are is scaled based on a scaling factor determining how far in temperature that an instant temperature for a scaled intermediate temperature value of the scaled intermediate temperature values is from the lower region ([0067]-[0070]).
19. Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 8.
20. Regarding claim 9, Bao in view of Rehmeyer disclose the method of claim 7, as disclosed above.
Bao further discloses wherein the scaled intermediate temperature value is scaled based on a scaling factor determining how far in temperature that an instant temperature for the scaled intermediate temperature value is from the upper region ([0067]-[0070]).
21. Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 9.
22. Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao, in view of Rehmeyer, in further view of Egan US 2023/0110664 (hereinafter, Egan).
23. Regarding claim 2, Bao in view of Rehmeyer disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Bao further discloses wherein the low temperature value, the highest temperature value, and the scaled intermediate temperature values comprise temperatures, each providing a comparison to a maximum operating temperature of the component whose temperature is sensed ([0027], [0032]).
Bao in view of Rehmeyer does not disclose:
normalized temperatures, each providing a comparison to a maximum operating temperature of the component whose temperature is sensed.
However, Egan discloses:
normalized temperatures, each providing a comparison to a maximum operating temperature of the component whose temperature is sensed ([0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bao in view of Rehmeyer to use normalized temperatures, each providing a comparison to a maximum operating temperature of the component whose temperature is sensed as taught by Egan. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine a respective relative composite temperature value for components of the storage device (Egan, [0033]).
24. Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 2.
25. Regarding claim 3, Bao in view of Rehmeyer in view of Egan disclose the method of claim 2, as disclosed above.
Bao further discloses wherein the sensor comprises a board sensor and the other sensors comprise and a memory sensor ([0027]). Further, Egan also discloses a controller sensor and a memory sensor ([0033]).
Bao in view of Egan does not disclose:
most-accurate sensor.
However, Rehmeyer discloses:
most-accurate sensor ([0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bao in view of Egan to use most-accurate sensor as taught by Rehmeyer. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine temperature of the storage device accurately (Rehmeyer, [0017]).
26. Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 3.
27. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao, in view of Rehmeyer, in further view of Driker et al. US 2018/0091017 (hereinafter, Driker).
28. Regarding claim 10, Bao in view of Rehmeyer disclose the method of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Bao further discloses low temperature value as disclosed above. Rehmeyer disclose most accurate sensor as disclosed above.
Bao in view of Rehmeyer does not disclose:
wherein the low temperature value is accurate to +/−1° C.
However, Driker discloses:
wherein the low temperature value is accurate to +/−1° C ([0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bao in view of Rehmeyer to use wherein the low temperature value is accurate to +/−1° C as taught by Driker. One would have been motivated to do so in order to apply the accuracy measuring methodology of a temperature sensor system as known in the art and as taught by Driker in a temperature management system such as that of Bao and Rehmeyer, thereby making it particularly suitable for measurement of very small temperature changes, which would be beneficial to the temperature management system of Bao and Rehmeyer (Driker, [0034]).
Conclusion
29. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
30. 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 date of this final action.
31. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on 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.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights